An application for the rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure must be decided solely based on the averments contained in the plaint; it is impermissible to consider the defendant's written statement or conduct a trial on merits at this preliminary stage.

C A V Order

1. This Civil Revision has been filed by the applicant/defendant No.5 against the order dated 22.12.2021 (Annexure A-1) passed by the First Civil Judge Class-I, Korba in Civil Suit No.24-A/2018, whereby the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC preferred by defendant No.5, has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 (plaintiff) filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and possession in respect of the suit property. The plaintiff sought a declaration that the gift deed dated 24.07.2014, executed by defendant Nos.3 & 4 in favour of defendant No. 5 (applicant herein) be declared as null and void. A further declaration was sought to the effect that the disputed property is Government Nazul land, over which defendants 3 to 5 have no right, title or interest, of which, they are not in possession. The plaintiff further sought a permanent injunction to restrain defendants 3 to 5 from raising any construction over the suit property, changing its nature, or dispossessing the plaintiff therefrom. Additionally, an injunction is sought to restrain the defendants from damaging the memorial statue of Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel and a prayer for recovery of possession of the suit property. The suit was filed, inter alia, on the ground that the plaintiff is a registered institution and is in lawful possession of the suit property.

3. Defendant No.5 (applicant herein) flied his written statement, categorically denying all the allegations made in the plaint. It was averred that the suit property is the absolute ownership property of defendants 3 & 4, who duly executed the gift-deed in favour of the applicant. The written statement further stated that proceedings under Section 250 of the Land Revenue Code (in short “the Code”), were initiated by Kailash and Satyanarayan Agrawal (deceased) {defendants 3 & 4) against the plaintiff, which resulted in a final order dated 21.5.2015 passed by the competent revenue authority. The demarcation was subsequently conducted and the said order has since been upheld up to the level of the Commissioner. Furthermore, it is submitted that WP(PIL) No.76/2017 and WPC No.277/2017 were also filed, wherein a common order dated 14.7.2017 was passed by this Court. The Committee, constituted pursuant to the order passed by this Court, has conducted an enquiry and reached the logical conclusion that the applicant’s possession of Khasra No. 3/1 Ka area 259.68 acres, is valid. Further, the allegations of unauthorized possession over the Government Nazul land were found to be incorrect. An application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC was filed by the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff has no right or title over the subject land and consequently, has no locus to challenge the gift-deed executed by defendants 3 & 4. It was further averred that the order passed under Section 250 of the Code, at the instance of the original owners (defendants 3 & 4) has been duly executed, therefore, the plaintiff cannot seek restoration of possession contrary to the said order. Moreover, no cause of action has arisen in favour of the plaintiff nor does any lie questioning the registered gift deed dated 24.7.2014. By the impugned order, the trial Court has rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC on the ground that only the plaint averments ought to be seen and prima facie, the plaint averments discloses the cause of action. The impugned order is illegal, erroneous and contrary to law. Hence, this Revision.

4. Learne