Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
MANEESH SHARMA
Shashikant Sharma, S/o Kailash Chand Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Hanuman Sahay Choudhary, S/o Kalyan Sahay Chaudhary – Respondent
ORDER :
MANEESH SHARMA, J.
1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 28.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge No.18, Jaipur Metropolitan-I in Civil Suit No.464/2025, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC was rejected.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendant No.1/petitioner, claiming possession on the basis of the letter dated 20.11.2017, and sought a decree for permanent injunction against the defendant No.1/petitioner. In the plaint, it was narrated that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 is in lawful possession of the suit property and the plaintiff/respondent No.1 is bent upon forcefully dispossessing him. In the plaint, the plaintiff pleaded that the cause of action accrued on 05.09.2025, the date on which defendant No. 1/petitioner allegedly vandalized the suit property and attempted to forcibly evict the plaintiff therefrom.
3. After service upon the defendants, the defendant No.1/petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read
The court affirmed that only the plaint's averments are to be considered in an application under Order 7 Rule 11, ruling that the plaint sufficiently disclosed a cause of action and other objections ....
The grounds for rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC cannot be examined at the stage of defendant's evidence and go into the merits of the suit, which should be decided during the....
(1) Rejection of plaint – Suit for permanent prohibitory injunction—Wrong description of suit property—Under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, plaint cannot be rejected for wrong description of immovable property....
The court ruled that a plaint cannot be rejected summarily under Order VII Rule 11 CPC without determining if it discloses a cause of action, especially when limitation is a mixed question of law and....
The proviso of Order 7, Rule 11 evidently covers the cases falling within the ambit of clauses (b) and (c) and has no application to a rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d).
Mere plea of Order II Rule 2 of CPC taken up by the petitioners as defendants in the trial Court was not with respect to filing of the suit on the same cause of action, but, Order II Rule 2 of CPC wa....
(1) It is plaint averment that is required to be primarily considered at stage of considering application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC.(2) Plea with respect to Order II Rule 2 of CPC has to be e....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
