The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering documents filed along with the plaint for deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The judgment emphasized that documents filed along with the plaint form part of the plaint and should be taken into consideration for deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

JUDGMENT

Sandeep Sharma, J. - Instant Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed against the order dated 3.9.2019 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Nadaun, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh in CMA No.50 of 2017 in Civil Suit No.301 of 2016, whereby application under Order 7 Rule 11(A) read with Section 151 CPC, having been filed by the petitionersdefendants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants), praying therein for rejection of the plaint, having been filed by the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff), came to be dismissed.

2. Since despite service, respondent-plaintiff failed to put in appearance either in person or through counsel, therefore, he was ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte on 25.8.2020.

3. For having bird's eye view, certain undisputed facts as emerge from the record are that the plaintiff filed a Civil Suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants, their family members, agents and servants from raising any kind of construction, cutting trees and changing nature of land compromised in Khata No.23min, Khatauni No.33-37, Khasra No.97098, Kita 2, area measuring 00-4-20 hectares as per jamabandi for the year 2010-2011, situate at Mahal Ambi, Mauza Bhumpal, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh till the partition of the land as per law. Besides above, plaintiff also prayed that in case the defendants succeed in raising any sort of construction over the suit land during the pendency of the suit then decree for joint possession by way of demolition by mandatory injunction directing the defendants to restore the suit land to its original position may also be passed.

4. Record reveals that alongwith aforesaid civil suit plaintiff had filed an application for stay bearing CMA No.285 of 2016 (Annexure P-2). Initially, learned court below directed the parties to maintain status quo qua nature, character, construction, cutting of valuable trees and possession over the suit land vide order dated 30.11.2016, however, subsequently aforesaid application came to be dismissed vide detailed order dated 5.9.2019.

5. Aforesaid claim of the plaintiff as set up in the suit came to be resisted by the defendants by filing written statement, wherein they specifically took a stand that entire suit land stand sold to them by predecessor-in-interest of plaintiff and as such, plaintiff being totally stranger to the suit land has no right, whatsoever to file the suit against them claiming therein joint possession. Before suit having been filed by the plaintiff could be taken to its logical ends, defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, praying therein for rejection of plaint (Annexure P-5), averring therein that since suit land already stands sold in favour of the defendants by predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff, plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit. Defendants specifically averred in the aforesaid application that the grandfather of the plaintiff namely Sh. Suhru Ram had sold out his entire share to defendant No.1 and his brother in the year 2001. Defendants also claimed in the aforesaid application that defendants No.2 to 4 are sons of defendant No.1 and have constructed their houses and shops over the suit land. While seeking rejection of the plaint, defendants claimed in the application that the plaintiff had filed suit on the basis of wrong revenue record in connivance with the revenue staff. Since suit of the plaintiff is based upon true revenue record, wherein admittedly defendants have been shown to be owner of the suit property, prayer made in the application for rejection of the plaint deserves to be accepted.

6. Aforesaid application having been filed by the defendants came to be contested by the plaintiff, who in reply to the application claimed that he inherited the estate of his grandfather Sh. Suhru Ram through Will and he is the owner in possession of the suit land alongwith o