The court affirmed that non-framing of specific issues does not constitute grounds for rejecting a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , for setting aside the order dated 26.05.2025 (Annexure P9) passed by the trial court, whereby application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC either for rejection of plaint and for framing the necessary issues, has being dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset submits that the present Revision Petition is being pressed only qua the issue of framing of additional issue; and no prayer is being made for rejection of the plaint on ground of non-deposit of Court fee. It is submitted that as per the pleaded facts in the plaint and denied by the other in the written statement, it was incumbent upon the learned trial Court to at least frame an issue in respect of the Court fee payable by the respondent/plaintiff. By way of impugned order both the prayers have been rejected, and the impugned order therefore suffers from patent illegalities and jurisdictional error in the eyes of law.

3. It is further submitted that as also stated in the Revision Petition, vide impugned order dated 26.5.2025, the Learned Trial Court has wrongly dismissed the application on the ground that “as per averment of the plaint there would no amount to nagitation of concept of co-share. The Learned Trial Court further fell in error while rejecting the another prayer for framing the distinct issue as per concept of the order 14 of CPC. The Learned trial court has wrongly returned the finding that the issue of payment of ad valorem court fee is covered with the already framed issue "Whether the present suit is not maintainable in the present form? - OPD" The above said issue framed by the Trial Court is not fall under the requirement to frame issue as per the material proposition, affirmed by the party and denied by the other. The Learned Trial Court has overlooked the concept of framing the issue and the principle of law laid down on this subject. The requirement of law is to frame issue not on the basis of the prayer made in the suit, but the separate issues required to be made on each material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by the other.”

4. No other argument is made on behalf of the petitioner.

5. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail.

I find no merit in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.

6. Perusal of record shows that the respondent had filed a suit dated ‘Nil’ (Annexure P1) for possession by way of partition; and mandatory injunction directing the petitioner/defendant to remove illegal construction of specific khasra numbers. It was the pleaded case of the plaintiff that the parties to the suit are joint owners as per their share in the suit land measuring 84 kanal 19 marla as the suit land has not been legally partitioned between the co-sharers. The petitioner had filed written statement dated ‘Nil’ (Annexure P2) to the said suit. Subsequently, the petitioner had filed application dated 02.05.2017 (Annexure P3) under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC for rejection of the plaint; to which reply dated 24.07.2017 (Annexure P4) was filed. The said application was dismissed as withdrawn by the petitioner on 02.11.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed another/present application dated ‘Nil’ (Annexure P7); to which reply dated ‘Nil’ (Annexure P8) was filed by the respondents. Vide the impugned order dated 26.05.2025, the said application (Annexure P7) of the petitioner, has been dismissed.

7. I find no error in the impugned order as, it can not be lost sight of tha