Point of Law: Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC reads as Rejection of plaint- Plaint shall be rejected, where suit appears from statement in plaint to be barred by any law, where it is not filed in duplicate.

JUDGMENT :

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

Petitioner is defendant No. 2 whereas the plaintiffs are respondents No. 1 to 5 and defendant No. 6 is the husband of respondent No. 1 and has been arraigned as defendant No. 1 in the suit whereas respondents No. 7 and 8 are defendants No. 4 and 5 in the suit.

2. Respondents No. 1 to 5 filed a suit for declaration that they alongwith respondent No. 6 constitute a joint Hindu family and the land detailed in the plaint a joint Hindu family anscestral and co-parcenary property and defendant No.1 being a Karta and manager of the property. A further declaration was sought to the effect that respondent No. 6 was not competent to sell the property without any legal necessity and therefore the sale deeds dated 08.01.2010, 05.01.2016, 26.05.2011 and 10.12.2015 were illegal, null and void and do not affect the right of the petitioner and are thus not binding upon him. However, at this stage, it needs to be mentioned that there was no prayer whatsoever for setting aside the sale deed.

3. The petitioner-defendant No. 2 contested the suit by filing written statement wherein a number of preliminary objections were raised, more particularly, to the effect that the suit was in the nature of fraud litigation being engineered by respondents No. 1 to 5 in connivance with petitioner No. 6 i.e. defendant No. 1, who himself had sold the suit land to the petitioner as also respondent No. 7 on 08.01.2010 and he was still alive and had already challenged the above sale deeds by filing a civil suit, which is pending before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bilaspur.

4. Apart from the written statement, the petitioner filed a separate application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaint being void, disclosing no cause of action being barred by law of limitation and being frivolous and misuse of the Court. It was further averred that the husband of respondent No. 6 had himself filed a suit after the period of limitation and an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC was also pending adjudication in the said suit. It is after sensing the fate of the civil suit No. 23/1 of 2014, titled as Ajay Dwivedi vs. Reshma Poswal the defendant No. 1 managed the present suit with the connivance of his family members, wife and children simply in order to which was nothing but an example of fraud litigation not meant for justice but for malafide intention to harass the petitioner.

Noticeably, all these facts as narrated above, have not been disputed.

5. Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC reads as under:-

11. Rejection of plaint.- The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:—

(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;

(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so;

(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;

(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;

(f) where the plaintiff fails comply with the provision of Rule 9.

Provided that the time fixed by the court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp papers shall not be extended unless the court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp papers, as the case may be within the time fixed by the court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.

6. It is evident from the address given by respondent No. 6 in the suit filed by him being Civil Suit No. 23/1 of 2014 that he is resident of House No. 97, Roura Sector-2, District Bilaspur