ORDER

This civil revision has been preferred by the applicant/plaintiff under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') has been filed against the order dated 05.12.2023 passed by Civil Judge, Class-II, Narayangarh in Civil Suit No.243-A (Old No.63-A) by which the application filed by the applicant under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of counter claim filed by the non-applicant has been rejected.

(2) The facts of the case in nutshell is that the present applicant/plaintiff filed a civil suit against the present non- applicants/defendants under Order 7 Rule 1 of CPC, 1908. The applicant/plaintiff in the civil suit sought possession for the land bearing survey no.1, having rakba, 1.00 hectare situated at village- Pipliyapanth, Tehsil-Malhargarh, District-Mandsaur (MP) and the applicant/plaintiff is a bonafide purchaser of the land in question and the land was purchased from the non-applicant/defendant No.2. (3) The learned trial court issued notice in the suit and the matter was fixed for appearance of non-applicants/defendants No.1 to 4. After receiving the notice, the non- applicants/defendants No.2 and 3 filed their separate written statement cum counter claim. The counter claim filed by the non- applicants/defendants No.2 is rejected by the court but the counter claim filed by the non-applicant/defendant No.3 is allowed by the trial court.

(4) The applicant/plaintiff filed the order 7 Rule 11 CPC application submitting that the defendant No.3 has not disclosed the cause of action in his counter claim so the counter claim is not maintainable.

(5) After hearing counsel for both the parties, the trial court has rejected the application filed by the plaintiff.

(6) Being aggrieved by the impugned order, this revision has been preferred by the applicant/plaintiff and has submitted that it is settled position of law and pleadings of the plaint and counter claim but the trial court without considering the settled legal position has rejected the Order 7 Rule 11 CPC application. So prays for setting aside the impugned order and also prays for rejection of counter claim.

(7) Counsel for the defendant No.3 supported the impugned order and prays for rejection of this revision.

(8) I have heard counsel for both the parties and have perused the documents filed by the plaintiff.

(9) Counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that in the counter claim the defendant No.3 has not disclosed any cause of action. (10) In the case of Raghvendra Sharan Singh Vs. Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead Representative) reported in 2020 Vol.16

SCC 601, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that plaint is liable to be rejected that 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, he should exercise his power under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. A perusal of the record shows that the contention of defendant is immaterial.

(11) In the present case, the counter claim filed by the defendant No.3 before the trial Court is Annexure-P/3. A perusal of Annexure-P/3 counter claim filed by the defendant No.3 is that there is not any single word used for disclosing the cause of action and right to sue. So a perusal of the pleadings in the counter claim filed by the defendant No.3 is that there is lack of pleadings in regard to the cause of action so it was found that defendant No.3 is unable to disclose the cause of action, so there is no cause of action disclosed in the counter claim then such counter claim is not maintainable.

(12) So, in the considered opinion of this court, the trial court has committed error in holding the maintainability of counter claim filed by the defendant No.3. So the impugned order passed by the trial court is not correct and is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is her