The main legal point established is that the Court must thoroughly examine the plaint and apply relevant legal provisions, such as Section 9 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, before rejecting it.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. - Despite the service of notice, the plaintiffs (respondent No.1 to 3 herein) have not entered appearance.

2. The petitioner herein is the defendant No.1 in a suit filed by the plaintiff for grant of a decree of declaration with a consequential relief of permanent injunction and temporary injunction. The prayer clause of the plaint reads as under:-

'It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to:-

N. Pass a decree for declaration that the revenue entry be corrected on the basis of Rojnameha Rapat No. 163 and as per succession and also correct the mutation No. 6469 sanctioned on 28.12.1993, correct the entry regarding the actual owner in possession of the agricultural land in question and same be mutated in the name of the Plaintiffs and performa defendants also described in Para No. 1,2,3,&,5,6 of the Plaint.

O. To pass a decree for declaration to the effect that after the correct of the revenue entry by the defendants no. 2, 3, and 4 as per law and rule returned the excess land in question in favour of the Plaintiffs and Performa defendants then same be recovered from the land in question sale by the defendants me 5 and 6 on the basis of wrong entry to the defendants No. 7 passed in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the defendants.

P. To pass a decree of Permanent Injunction against the defendants thereby restraining the defendants No. 7 not to interfere in the peaceful owner in possession of the land in question of Plaintiffs and Performa defendants on the basis illegally sanctioned the mutation No. 6469 on dated 28.12.1993 and alleged sale deed Vasika No. 1390 dated 30.06.2021. Till the final disposal of this case in the interests of justice Enquiry and fair play for the parties.

Q. To pass a decree for Mandatory Direction to the defendants no. 5 and 6 to refund the excess amount of Rs. 505000/- which was received from the defendants no. 8 on the basis of acquired some part of land in question and the defendants no. 5 and 6 excess amount received on the basis of alleged wrong mutation no. 6469 dated 28.12.1993 to the Plaintiffs as per documents and record on file in the interest of justice.

R. To pass a mandatory direction to the defendants No. 8 not to sanction the mutation regarding the house in question mention in the Para No. 2 of the Plaint on the basis of the forged/wrong mutation no. 6469 dated 28.12.1993 in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.

S. Any other Farther relief which this Hon'ble Court may deed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances may also be awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants in the interest of justice equity and fair play."

3. An application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') with a prayer to reject the plaint has been dismissed by the trial Court vide impugned order dated 17.09.2021. Challenging the correctness of the aforesaid order, this revision petition has been filed.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that from the complete reading of the plaint, it is evident that the plaintiffs have no right, title or interest in the property and they are not entitled to the decree as prayed for by them.

5. In the plaint, the plaintiffs claim to be the heirs of Sh. Amrit Singh son of late Sh.Bhagwan Sahai.

6. At this stage, it would be appropriate to draw a pedigree table of inter se relationship between the parties.