Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.
Mrigendra Singh —Appellant
versus
Sohan Raj Surana & Ors. —Respondents
S.B. Civil First Appeal No.425 of 2012
Decided on 2.11.2015
For the Appellant: None present
For the Respondents:Mr. Vikas Balia, Mr. Hemant Balani, Mr. Ashok Patel, Mr. Amit Tatia, Advocates
For the Applicant Ms. Radhika Bhati.:Mr. Ranjeet Joshi, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
In view of dismissal of appeal, Commissioner’s Report along with photographs produced and any change of situation at site, will not be treated as part of record of appeal and parties’ respective rights will not be affected either ways on basis of said report of Commissioner and documents annexed with it, submitted in pursuance of interim order of coordinate bench, which also stands vacated with dismissal of appeal itself.
Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VII, Rule 11 — Rejection of plaint — Non-disclosure of cause of action — Suit for declaration that sale deed bogus and unauthorized — Except again and again using words “collusion” and “fraud” in plaint — No details given nor it demonstrated manner in which any prejudice in law by breach of any rights in law caused — Plaint thereby did not disclose any valid cause of action for relief prayed in suit/plaint — Plaint liable to be rejected — HELD — Trial court given elaborate reasons for allowing application filed by respondents/defendants under O. VII, R. 11 — And found that no triable issue involved in suit filed by plaintiff/appellant — As plaintiff failed to disclose any basis of his alleged rights and any cause of action in plaint — In absence of impleadment of necessary and proper parties in suit — Suit being time barred liable to be dismissed at threshold and did not deserve trial — Appeal dismissed. [Para 9 & 10]
Result: Appeal dismissed
Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.—None is present on behalf of appellant/plaintiff, though names of Mr. Arpit Bhoot, Mr. Surendra Singh, and Ms. Mehak Chopra have been shown in the cause list at Serial No.48, and despite message sent to them nobody put in appearance on behalf of plaintiff/appellant though Mr. Surendra Singh had appeared in a case before this Court today in the case listed at Serial No.16 only. The matter was thus heard from the side of the respondents for about one hour before lunch break. Even in the second round post lunch session, nobody has put in appearance on behalf of appellant/plaintiff to argue the case, therefore, the case was again heard after lunch break and learned counsel for the respondents/defendants and applicant addressed the Court and the present appeal is being disposed of by the following order.
2. By the impugned order dated 01.10.2012, learned trial court of Additional District Judge (FT) No.3, Jodhpur Metropolitan, has allowed the application filed by the respondents/defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and dismissed the Suit No.14/2002- Mrigendra Singh Vs. Sohan Raj Surana & Ors. The reasons and findings recorded by the learned trial court for rejection of the suit, allowing such application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC are quoted herein below ready reference: -
[Matter In Other Language]
If on a meaningful not formal reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue the trial court should exercise its power under O-7 R-11 CPC, taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled.
[Matter In Other Language]
Rejection of plaint- Non-disclosure of cause of action-Suit for declaration that sale deed was bogus and unauthorized-Except again and against using the words “collusion” and “fraud” in plaint, no details given nor it demonstrated manner in which any prejudice in law by breach of any rights in law had been caused- Plaint thereby did not disclose any valid cause of action for relief prayed in suit/plaint-Plaint liable to be rejected.
[Matter In Other Language]
There must be a cause of action to enforce the claim made in the plaint/petition, and it should be specifically disclosed in the plaint/petition. A plaint/petition not disclosing a cause of action if i.e. illusory or vexatious or that is bound to be abortive, then a Court should reject such plaint/petition without wasting any further time for adjudication by conducting trial.
[Matter In Other Language]
No written or registered document is necessary for an individual to contribute any and or immovable property as a contribution against his share of the capital of a new partnership business. By virtue of S.14 of the partnership Act and certain provisions of the Contract Act, they become the properties of the firm as soon as the partners intend to so bring them in and treat them as such. This sort of contribution or transfer is not prohibited by the Transfer of Property At, 1852 or the Registration Act 1908.
[Matter In Other Language]
Rejection of plaint for suppression of material act- When permissible- Manner in which such power to be exercised- Burden of proof on defendant to obtain rejection of plaint on such ground- Delay in and non-pressing for rejection of plaint on such ground at the earliest opportunity- Effect- Held, such rejection is permissible only if the suppressed fact is material, in the sense that had it not been suppressed it would have had an effect on the merits of the case, whatever view the court may have taken- To obtain such rejection defendant must show that plaintiff could not possibly succeed on the basis of the pleadings and in the circumstances of the case, given the suppression of the fact(s) in question.
[Matter In Other Language]
Sd/-
[Matter In Other Language]
3. Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants, Mr. Vikas Balia, urged that the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant did not disclose any caus
