A partition suit cannot have its plaint rejected at the initial stage based on claims regarding property ownership or the sufficiency of included documents; such matters must be determined at trial.

JUDGMENT :

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.

1. This revision under Section 115 of the CPC, 1908 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order of rejection to his petition under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC, 1908 passed on dated 22.04.2023 (Annexure-3) in I.A. No.16 of 2022 arising out of C.S. No.40 of 2022 by the learned Civil, Judge, Senior Division, Banpur in the District of Khordha.

2. The factual backgrounds of this revision, which prompted the petitioner for filing of the same is that, the Opp. Party No.1 in this revision i.e. Deepak Kumar Bedamatta filed a suit for partition vide C.S. No.40 of 2022 being the sole plaintiff against the petitioner and Opp. Party No.2 to 4 of this revision arraying them as defendants praying for partition of his 1/5th share from LOT Nos.1 and 2 of the suit properties in the plaint stating that,

“the suit properties are his ancestral properties, in which, he (plaintiff) has 1/5^th share. The suit properties are the joint and undivided properties of the plaintiff and defendants. The said suit properties have not been partitioned between them (plaintiff and defendants) as yet through metes and bounds partition. For which, the suit properties are liable to be partitioned and his 1/5^th share therefrom is to be curved out.”

3. Having been noticed from the learned Trial Court in the said suit for partition vide C.S. No.40 of 2022 filed by the plaintiff (Deepak Kumar Bedamatta, Opp. Party No.1), the defendant No.1 of the said suit i.e. Braja Kishore Bedamatta filed an I.A. vide I.A. No.16 of 2022 in that suit under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC, 1908 praying for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff (Deepak Kumar Bedamatta, Opp. Party No.1) on the following grounds i.e.:

i) The suit properties are not liable for partition, as the same are not the ancestral properties of the plaintiff.

ii) The suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable on the ground of suppression of material facts.

iii) The suit of the plaintiff is barred by law of limitation, for which, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.

iv) Non-inclusion of all the family properties into the suit schedule.

4. The plaintiff (Deepak Kumar Bedamatta, Opp. Party No.1) objected to the aforesaid I.A. No.16 of 2022 of the defendant No.1 (Brajakishore Bedamatta) under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC, 1908 stating in his objection that, the I.A. No.16 of 2022 under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC, 1908 for rejection of plaint is not fulfilling any of the essentials of the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC, 1908 entailing for rejection of his plaint. For which, the I.A. No.16 of 2022 filed by the defendant No.1 is liable to be rejected.

5. After hearing from the learned counsels of both the sides, the learned Trial Court rejected to the I.A. No.16 of 2022 under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC, 1908 of the defendant No.1 on dated 22.04.2023 assigning the reasons that, the I.A. No.16 of 2022 of the defendant No.1 is not fulfilling any of the essentials of Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC, 1908 for rejection of plaint of the plaintiff.

6. On being aggrieved with the said order of rejection to the I.A. No.16 of 2022 under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC, 1908 of the defendant No.1 passed on dated 22.04.2023 by the learned Trial Court, the defendant No.1 challenged the same filing this revision being the petitioner against the plaintiff arraying him as Opp.Party No.1 and also arraying other def