Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Madan Gopal Vyas , J.
Gen Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Praveen Chouhan and anr. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 179 of 2018
Decided On : 13-12-2023
ORDER :
Madan Gopal Vyas, J.
By the instant revision petition, under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 petitioner-defendant has challenged order dated 29.08.2018, passed by Senior Civil Judge, Bheem, District Rajsamand (for short, 'learned trial Court'). The learned trial Court, by the order impugned has rejected application of the petitioner-defendant under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC in a suit for permanent injunction laid by respondent-plaintiffs.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant submits while passing the impugned order, the learned trial Court has not examined the matter in its entirety and the impugned order is absolutely vague and non-speaking order. Learned counsel further submits that if the order impugned is allowed to stand then there would be substantial failure of justice. Therefore, it is prayed that the revision petition may be allowed.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the learned trial Court has passed a reasoned order and no interference is warranted.
4. From perusal of the impugned order, it is apparently shows that none of the objections made in the application under Order 7, Rule 11 read with 151 CPC has been dealt with by learned trial Court and only while mentioning the arguments of the respective parties, without giving any cogent findings, the learned trial Court straight way rejected the application.
5. In view of the above, it is clear that the order dated 29.08.2018 is non-speaking one and the same is not sustainable.
6. Resultantly, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to learned Court below for deciding the application of the petitioner-defendant under Order 7, Rule --11-- CPC afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to both the parties strictly in accordance with law.
A trial court's order must be reasoned and address all objections raised; failure to do so results in substantial injustice.
The main legal point established is the need to consider the implications of revisions and orders when deciding on remand, and the limitations and conditions for making a reference to the High Court ....
The cause of action paragraph set out in the plaint must be considered along with the other averments stated in the plaint as a whole for rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC.
The court allows reconsideration of an amendment application when prior orders incorrectly address relevant issues in a case.
The court affirmed that only the plaint's averments are to be considered in an application under Order 7 Rule 11, ruling that the plaint sufficiently disclosed a cause of action and other objections ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of judicial inquiry at the application stage under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC and the interpretation of the grounds for rejecti....
Point of Law : Revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC is to be exercised to correct jurisdictional errors only.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
