The presence of all defendants is not necessary for a court to reject a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, emphasizing adherence to natural justice principles.

JUDGMENT :

Vivek Singh Thakur, J.

1. Appellants herein are defendants in Civil Suit preferred by respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is proforma defendant No.7 in the Civil Suit.

2. Present appeal has been preferred by appellants-defendants against judgment dated 08.05.2024, passed by District Judge, Shimla, H.P., in Case No. 17-S/13 of 2022, titled as Bhupinder Singh vs. Subhash Chand and others, whereby order dated 11.07.2022 passed by Civil Judge, Court No.7, Shimla, rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC in Civil Suit No. 38/1 of 2017, titled as Bhupinder Singh vs. Subhash Chand and others, has been set aside and matter has been remanded for disposal of application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC preferred by the defendants afresh, in accordance with law, but after ensuring service of and giving opportunity to defendant No.7.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material on record.

4. Parties, hereinafter, are being referred as per their status in the civil suit, for convenience.

5. Brief facts of the case are that partition proceedings under H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Revenue Act’) between parties were concluded in Case No.25/IX- 2013 vide order dated 20.05.2014 and instrument of partition dated 07.09.2015 was drawn by Assistant Collector 1^st Grade (Rural), Shimla. Appeal No.11-VIII/2014, preferred by the plaintiff against the aforesaid order and instrument of partition, was dismissed by Sub Divisional Collector (Rural), Shimla, vide order dated 22.02.2015.

6. Plaintiff filed a Civil Suit No.38/1 of 2017, titled as Bhupinder Singh vs. Subhash Chand and others, assailing the aforesaid orders passed by the Assistant Collector 1^st Grade and Sub Divisional Collector, seeking declaration that these orders had no consequence on the rights of the plaintiff being illegal, null and void, wrong and inoperative against the plaintiff.

7. Appellants were arrayed as defendants, whereas, respondent No.2 was arrayed as proforma defendant. Notice was issued to the defendants, but not to the proforma defendant, by the Trial Court. After service, defendants preferred applications under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the ground that suit was barred by law under the provisions of Section 171 (2) of the Revenue Act. The application was contested by the plaintiff by filing reply.

8. After considering pleadings in the plaint and documents filed therewith, Civil Judge, by discussing the contents of the plaint and provisions of law especially Section 171 of the Revenue Act, allowed the applications and rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC with direction to return the original documents filed with the plaint to the plaintiff after retaining photocopies thereof.

9. The aforesaid order was assailed by the plaintiff by filing appeal before the District Judge. The District Judge in the impugned order, though has referred averments made in the plaint, applications under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC as well as provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and Section 171 of the Revenue Act, however, instead of returning finding on merits with respect to reasons assigned by the Civil Judge for rejecting the plaint, has allowed the appeal on sole ground that defendant No.7 was not served and given opportunity of being heard before deciding application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC.

10. The District Judge, after recording the fact that proforma defendant No.7 was neither summoned nor heard before passing of the impugned order, has opined that defendant No.7 was condemned unheard. According to District Judge, defendant No.7, was joined as a party in the suit because his presence was necessary in order to enable the Court to adjudicate upon the matter in controversy between the parties spectrally and completely. It has also been observed by the District Judge that necessary party is included for having interest in the subject matter of the lis and for necessity of involvement of such party for complete adjudic