The court upheld the discretion of the trial court in rejecting a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11, emphasizing that the maintainability of the suit must be evaluated based solely on the plaint's averments.

ORDER

1. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the purpose of seeking following reliefs: ­ “7(A) A writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction be issued to quash and set aside the undated order passed below Exh.31, by learned 6th Additional Civil Judge, Ahmedabad, Rural in Regular Civil Suit No.795/2016 and be pleased to further direct the learned Judge to proceed with the suit in accordance with law;

(B) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, further proceedings of Regular Civil Suit No.795/2016, may kindly be stayed;

(C) Any other and further relief or reliefs in favour of the petitioner, as deemed and just and proper, in the facts and circumstance of the case, may kindly be granted.

2. The case of the petitioners is that the Regular Civil Suit No.795/2016 is filed by the petitioners against the respondent inter alia seeking declaration and permanent injunction that defendants have no right, title or interest to deal with the suit property which is situated at village Bodakdev bearing Survey No.220/1, Taluka Daskroi, District Ahmedabad.

3. The case of the petitioners is that the defendants be restrained and their servants and agents from entering into any kind of agreement with regard to the suit land and also to declare the registered settlement agreement dated 7.10.2014 entered into by defendant No.1 with defendant Nos.2/4 to 2(5) relinquishing all her rights in pursuance of the agreement to sell and contrary to the valid decree dated 30.03.2007 which was passed in Regular Civil Suit No.66/2007. In this suit which has been filed in the year 2016, the defendant has preferred an application below application Exh.15 under Order 7 Rule 11 for seeking rejection of the plaint.

During that process, as per the say of the petitioner, original defendant No.1 Smt.Kantaben Shrikrishna Agrawal expired on 26.5.2017 and the petitioners were not aware about the death of defendant No.1. When the petitioner came to know about said death of defendant No.1, the original petitioners had obtained the death certificate on 14.4.2017 and simultaneously filed an application below Exh.21 for bringing legal heirs of defendant No.1 on record of Regular Civil Suit No.795/2016. Pending hearing of this application Exh.21, as per the say of the petitioner, on 28.8.2018 at Exh.30, the plaintiffs submitted a reply to the application of defendant filed which was under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC.

Rejoinder to that effect has also been submitted but a request was made that appropriate orders be passed. First, in time, an application Exh.21 and thereafter, the Order 7 Rule 11 application be heard. Ultimately, after the effective order is passed in the suit proceedings, the same would tantamount to be the orders against the dead person.

4. As a result of this, a request is made to give priority over application filed under Order 7 Rule 11. The learned trial Judge, after hearing the parties have rejected the request of the petitioners which is the subject matter of present petition.

5. Pursuant to the notice having been issued on 3.5.2019, learned advocate Ms.Trusha Patel has represented the cont