Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC inappropriate for disputed facts requiring evidence at trial.

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the dismissal of the application under Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (C.P.C.,) for rejection of plaint filed by the defendant/petitioner herein, in I.A.No.2 of 2021 in O.S.No.151 of 2021 on the file of the Principal District Munsiff, Permabalur.

2. The plaintiff/respondent herein instituted the suit in O.S.No.151 of

2021 under Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C., seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men or agents from in any manner interfering with the plaintiff’s alleged peaceful and continuous possession. 3. According to the plaintiff, the suit property originally belonged to his grandfather and was subsequently partitioned among his father, grandmother and his uncle. Thereafter, the plaintiff claims to have inherited the same upon the death of his father and to be in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Alleging interference by the defendant, the plaintiff/respondent has filed the suit in O.S.No.151 of 2021 for the above-said relief.

4. The defendant entered appearance and filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., seeking rejection of plaint on the ground that the suit property is a ‘Government-assigned land’ (commonly referred to as ‘AD condition land’) allotted in favour of the defendant’s family, subject to restrictions on alienation, and that the plaintiff has suppressed the said material fact. It was further contended that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action for instituting of injunction suit, and the same was not considered in the petition for rejection of plaint.

5. The Trial Court, upon consideration of the pleadings and the averments in the plaint, held that the question as to whether the property is assigned land and whether the rights of the parties can be decided at the stage of considering the application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., and that such issues requires adjudication upon evidence during trial. Accordingly, the application for rejection of plaint was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed before this Court.

6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/defendant submitted that the law relating to rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., is well settled and that the Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the averments made in the plaint. He further submitted that the Trial Court erred in holding that the issues raised in rejection of plaint could be considered only after recording evidence during trial. He also submitted that, if this Court issues direction to dispose off the suit at the earliest, it would help both sides to contest their case effectively and prays to issue direction for early disposal of the suit.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the application for rejection of plaint and that the issues raised by the defendant are matters for trial and cannot be adjudicated at the threshold. He further submitted that the order passed in I.A.No.3 of 2021 does not warrant any interference of this Court and prayed for dismissal of the present revision petition.

8. This Court, upon consideration of the submissions made on either side and on perusal of the materials available on record, finds that the suit is of the year 2021 and now the dispute pertains to the entitlement of the plaintiff to the relief of injunction. This Court is of the view that the Trial Court has rightly held that