Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
Rajeev Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Swatantrata Sangram Senani Ashrit Sangathan and others - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3022 of 2024
Decided on : 21-03-2024
Injunction - Property Dispute - Order VII Rule 11, Section 38, Section 41 - The court interpreted the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC and Sections 38 and 41 of the Specific Relief Act, emphasizing that a plaint must disclose a cause of action and that the plaintiffs had the right to challenge a compromise decree as they were not parties to it.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking to restrain the defendant from taking possession of disputed land and declaring a prior decree void. The defendant's application to reject the plaint was dismissed by the trial court, leading to this petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and that the plaintiffs were not barred from challenging the compromise decree as they were not parties to the earlier suit.
Issues: Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 and whether the plaintiffs had the locus standi to challenge the compromise decree.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the rejection of the plaint was not justified as it disclosed a cause of action and that the plaintiffs could challenge the compromise decree since they were not parties to it.
Result: The writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam, J.-This petition has been filed by the defendant-petitioner for the following relief:
b. To pass an order under the supervisory jurisdiction of this Hon'ble High Court, staying the further proceedings of Original Suit No. 399 of 2021 (Swatantrata Sangram Senani Ashrit Sangathan through President-Vishwa Mitra Tandon and others v. Rajeev Gupta), pending before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division)/F.T.C., Pilibhit.''
2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondents instituted Original Suit No. 399 of 2021 (Swatantra Sangram Senani Ashrit Sangthan through President-Vishwa Mitra Tandon and 2 others v. Rajeev Gupta) for the relief that defendant be restrained from taking possession and raising construction over the land in dispute belonging to the plaintiffs and also that decree passed in O.S. No. 287 of 2020 (Rajeev Gupta v. Karan Verma) dated 3.11.2020 be declared void. Defendant-petitioner appeared in the suit and moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit and the suit is also barred by Section 38 read with Section 41 (J) of Specific Relief Act, 1967. The aforesaid application filed by the petitioner was rejected by the trial Court by judgment and order dated 4.12.2023. Against the judgment and order dated 4.12.2023 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pilibhit, Civil Revision No. 94 of 2023 was filed by the defendant-petitioner and the same had also been dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 1 Pilibhit by its judgment and order dated 27.2.2024. Hence present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that plaintiffs have no cause of action and no locus standi to file the present suit. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit as filed by the plaintiff is barred under Section 38 and 41 (J) of the Specific Relief Act. It is next contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that second relief claimed by the plaintiff that the compromise judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 287 of 2020 (Rajeev Gupta v. Karan Verma) dated 3.11.2020 be declared void is hit by provisions of Order 23 Rule 3-A of the C.P.C. Courts below have rejected the application filed by the petitioner erroneously without considering the law as cited by the petitioner before the Court below.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court in case of M/s. Sree Surya Developers and Promoters v. N. Sailesh Prasad and others, 2022 (1) Apex Court Judgments 655 (SC), Tej Bahadur v. Narendra Modi, 2021 (1) Apex Court Judgments 109 (SC), Bharvagi Constructions and another v. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and others, 2017 (137) RD 574.
5. It will be useful to examine the provisions of law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner before considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. Rule 11 of the Order VII CPC is quoted as under :
(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 corre
A plaint cannot be rejected if it discloses a cause of action, and non-parties to a compromise decree have the right to challenge its validity.
Specific performance cannot be enforced against parties not privy to the original contract, and suits lacking a cause of action are subject to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
(1) There cannot be any challenge to a consent decree as stipulated under Order XXIII Rule 3-A of C.P.C.(2) Relief for specific performance can also be enforced against a person who is not a party to....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that no suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was not lawful, as per the provisions o....
The bar under Order XXIII Rule 3A of the CPC does not apply to a stranger to the compromise, and the plea of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law to be determined after evidence has been le....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that at the stage of considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the trial Court need not conduct a roving inquiry into the fact....
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....
A suit challenging a compromise decree not challenged, but the compromise itself is called into question, would be barred by the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 3A of CPC. Additionally, a third party,....
Mere plea of Order II Rule 2 of CPC taken up by the petitioners as defendants in the trial Court was not with respect to filing of the suit on the same cause of action, but, Order II Rule 2 of CPC wa....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
