[2023:RJ-JD:31725]

(1 of 4)

[CR-63/2023]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 63/2023

Shyam Sundar Soni S/o Chhangan Lal Soni, Aged About 58

Years, R/o Sunaro Ka Mohalla, Near Banthiya School, New Lane,

Gnga Shehar, Bikaner.

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

Satya Narayan S/o Late Shri Rmachndra Soni, R/o Dhora

Baas, Near Banthiya School, New Lane, Gnaga Shehar,

Bikaner.

2.

Tarachand S/o Late Shri Ramchndra Soni, R/o Dhora

Baas, Near Banthiya School, New Lane, Gnaga Shehar,

Bikaner.

3.

Laxmi Narayan, R/o Dhora Baas, Near Banthiya School,

New Lane, Gnaga Shehar, Bikaner.

4.

Deendayal S/o Shyam Sunder Soni, Aged About 28 Years,

R/o Sunaro Ka Mohalla, Near Banthiya School, New Lane,

Gnga Shehar, Bikaner.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Virendra Acharya

For Respondent(s)

:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

Judgment

DATE OF JUDGMENT

26/

09/2023

The present revision petition under Section 115 read with

Section 151 of CPC has been preferred by the petitioner-defendent

no. 1 against the order dated 20.04.2023 passed by the Additional

District Judge No. 2, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as the

learned Trial Court) in Civil Original Suit No. 107/2011 (CIS No.

1611/2014) vide which application filed by the petitioner under

Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC was rejected.

[2023:RJ-JD:31725]

(2 of 4)

[CR-63/2023]

2.

The facts in brief for the purpose of the present revision

petition are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of

possession, mesne profits and permanent injunction against the

petitioner-defendent no. 1. It was averred that the respondent’s

father Sh. Ramchandra purchased a house cum plot admeasuring

680 square yards situated in Sunaro Ka Mohalla, Near Banthiya

School, Gangashehar, Bikaner vide a registered sale deed dated

28.10.1957. The petitioner is the son of respondent-plaintiff’s

younger brother-Chagan Lal. Since the petitioner did not have any

place to reside, therefore the respondent gave him the house on

license. The title in respect to the disputed property vests in the

respondent. It was thus prayed that the decree of permanent

injunction be passed against the petitioner and the plaintiffs be

entitled to mesne profits @ Rs. 500/- per month. Further, the

petitioner may be directed to hand over the possession of the suit

premises to the respondent.

3.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner could not file any written statement to the suit filed

by the plaintiff as their opportunity of filing the written statement

was closed by the learned Trial Court. Thereafter, the petitioner

moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and under the

Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act for rejection of suit

filed by the respondent which was rejected by the learned Trial

court vide impugned order dated 20.04.2023.

4.

It is submitted that the Trial Court committed grave error in

dismissing the application under Order 7 Rule 11. It is further

submitted that the valuation of property is Rs. 7,00,000/- whereas

[2023:RJ-JD:31725]

(3 of 4)

[CR-63/2023]

the respondents have valued it at Rs. 2,40,000/- and accordingly,

the deficit Court Fees has been paid. Thus, the suit is grossly

undervalued.

5.

It is further submitted that there has been non-impleadment

of necessary parties. It is also submitted that no cause of action

arose in the present case as the plaintiffs do not have any valid

title to the property.

6.

Lastly, it was prayed that the revision petition be allowed and

the impugned order dated 20.04.2023 passed by the Additional

District Judge No. 2, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as the

learned Trial Court) in Civil Original Suit No. 107/2011 (CIS No.

1611/2014) be quashed and set aside and the application filed by

petitioner under Order 7 rule 11 CPC alongwith Section 11 of the

Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act may be allowed.

7.

Heard learned