IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK (In the matter of an application under Section 115 of the CPC, 1908)

NU Vista Ltd., erstwhile known as …. Petitioner M/s. Emami Cement Ltd. at Kalinga Nagar Industrial Complex, Jajpur -versus-

Brundaban Behera and others …. Opposite Parties Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode):

For Petitioner - Mr. M. Agarwal, Advocate.

For Opposite Parties- Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA Date of Hearing :28.01.2025 :: Date of Judgment :31.01.2025 A.C. Behera, J. This revision under Section 115 of the CPC, 1908 has been filed by the petitioner against the opposite parties challenging an order of rejection of its petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, 1908 for rejection of plaint of the plaintiffs in C.S. No.74 of 2021 passed on dated 20.12.2021 by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jajpur Road in the District of Jajpur.

The petitioner of this writ petition is the defendant No.3, the opposite party Nos.1 & 2 of this revision are the plaintiffs and opposite party Nos.3 & 4 i.e. State and the Tahasildar, Danagadi of this revision are the defendant Nos.1 & 2 in the suit vide C.S. No.74 of 2021.

2. The factual backgrounds of this revision, which prompted the petitioner (defendant No.3 in the suit) for filing of the same is that, the plaintiffs (opposite party Nos.1 & 2 of this revision) filed the suit vide C.S. No.74 of 2021 against the defendants (petitioner and opposite party Nos.3 & 4 of this revision) praying for declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit properties and to injunct the defendant No.3 (petitioner of this revision) permanently from entering into the suit properties on the ground that, they (plaintiffs) are the owners of the suit properties. Because, their predecessor was inducted in the suit properties by the ex intermediary for agricultural purpose and after induction of their predecessor, he had reclaimed the suit properties by removing bushes therefrom making the same fit for agricultural purpose and since the time of the ex-intermediary i.e. since 1930, till yet, they (plaintiffs) are possessing the same paying rent to the Government, in which, the defendants have no interest and possession.

Defendant No.3 i.e. NU Vista Ltd. (petitioner in this revision) filed a petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, 1908 in the suit of the plaintiffs vide C.S. No.74 of 2021 praying for rejection of the plaint on the ground that, the suit properties are forest land. The plaint of the plaintiffs does not disclose any cause of action. The suit of the plaintiffs is barred under law as per the provisions of The Schedule Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006.

3. After hearing from both the sides, the learned Trial Court rejected to the petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, 1908 of the defendant No.3 on dated 20.12.2021 assigning the reasons that, whether the suit land is a piece of forest land or not cannot be decided at this stage of the suit, as there is no indication in the plaint that, the suit properties are forest land, for which, the same can only be decided in the judgment of the suit after completion of evidence of both the sides.

4. On being dissatisfied with the aforesaid rejection of the petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, 1908 of the defendant No.3 passed by the learned Trial Court, the defendant No.3 challenged the same by filing this revision being the petitioner against the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 & 2 arraying them as opposite parties.

5. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

6. It is very fundamental in law that, at the time of consideration of the petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, 1908 filed by any defendant, only the averments made in the plaint is to be perused and examined by the Court, but not the written statement or any possible plea of the defendant.

T