1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(C) No.3757 of 2018

Shishir Kumar Gupta, aged about 59 years, son of late Ram Charitra Sahu,

resident of Main Road Hinoo, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, Ranchi, Jharkhand.

……

Petitioner/Defendant

Versus

Ashok Prasad, son of Sri Parmanand Sah, resident of Saket Nagar Hinoo,

P.O. and P.S. Doranda, Ranchi, Jhakhand.

…… Respondents/Plaintiff

-------

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

-------

For the Petitioner

: Mr. Shaukat Eqbal, Advocate

For the Respondents

: None

----------------------------

06

/ Dated 26

^th June, 2019

1.

This writ petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

whereby and whereunder the order dated 08.06.2018 passed in Title

Suit No.59 of 2003 by which the petition filed under Order VII Rule 11

of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected, is under challenge.

2.

The brief facts of the case of the petitioner as per the pleadings made

in the writ petition is that a suit has been filed being Title Suit No.59

of 2003 wherein the plaintiffs to the suit stated that they were the

tenant of defendant of one standing room of revisional survey plot

No.58 of Khata No.130 corresponding to portion of Municipal Holding

No.66 within new ward No.27 situated at Hinoo on a rent of Rs.600/-

per month. The petitioner/defendant took a sum of Rs.25,000/- as

security money from the plaintiff with an undertaking to return the

same at the time when the plaintiff/respondent would vacate the

premises and deliver the possession to the petitioner.

Further, the petitioner several times took friendly loan from

the respondent, lastly on 15.04.2000 the petitioner took a loan of

Rs.20,000/- for the performance of the marriage of his sister and

executed an agreement in favour of the plaintiff to pay the same

2

within one year and the said agreement has been misutilized by the

plaintiff by filing a suit for specific performance of the agreement

dated 15.04.2000.

3.

The defendant has appeared and filed written statement denying the

averment made in the plaint.

4.

Subsequently, a petition was filed on 17.01.2018 under Order VII Rule

11 of C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint stating therein that the plaintiff

has got no right or locus standi as a tenant to claim relief under

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act as also on the ground that

the said agreement has been entered into in between the parties for

the purpose of giving loan amount for performing the marriage of his

sister but according to the petitioner, the trial Court while dealing with

the petition filed under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. has not properly

appreciated and rejected the same on the ground that the trial court

is only required to look into the pleadings made in the plaint by the

plaintiff and not to look into the contention of the defendant raised

through the written statement, the aforesaid order is not challenged

by way of instant writ petition invoking the jurisdiction of this Court

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5.

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

very intent of the provision of Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. is to save

the valuable time of the Court and save the parties from contesting

the frivolous litigation and that is one of the case since the agreement

dated 15.04.2000 having been entered for the purpose of giving a

loan of Rs.20,000/- for performing the marriage of the sister of the

plaintiff which would be evident from the face of the agreement dated

15.04.2000 which has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ

petition but the same has not been appreciated by the trial court,

therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law.

6.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after going

through the pleadings made in the writ petition as also the finding

recorded in the impugned order, this Court thinks it fit and proper to

go through the provision of Order VII Rule 11 of the