1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA

ON THE 21^st OF FEBRUARY, 2022

CIVIL REVISION No. 339 of 2021

Between:-

KRISHI UJAP MANDI SAMITI DHAR

SECRETARY SHRI K.D. AGNIHOTRI

KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI

PREMISES DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER

(BY SHRI ASHOK AIREN, ADVOCATE )

AND

M/S KHEMCHAM JAIN PROPRIE

TOR ANUJ KUMAR JAIN S/O KHEMCHAND JAIN

34 DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI NITIN PHADKE, ADVOCATE)

(Whether approved for reporting:- Yes )

….............................................................................................................................

This revision coming on for admission this day, the court

passed the following:

ORDER

The petitioner has filed present revision under section 115 of the

Civil Procedure Code 1908 (for short C.P.C) being aggrieved by the

impugned order dated 09/09/2021 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-II,

Dhar in Civil Suit no. 99-A/2021, whereby an application filed under

Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC has been dismissed.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff

instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the

petitioner/defendant. The petitioner filed an application under Order 7

Rule 11 of CPC before the trial Court and raised a preliminary

objection to maintainability of such a civil suit contending that in view

2

of Section 66 of MP Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 (in short

Adhiniyam) the jurisdiction of civil Court was excluded and

cancellation of license could not be challenged before the civil Court.

After hearing both the parties, the trial Court has dismissed the

application vide impugned order dated 09/09/2021, hence present

revision before this Court.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

plaintiff has not given any notice before filing of the suit to the

petitioner/defendant and as per sections 66 and 67 of Adhiniyam,

jurisdiction of civil Court is barred in this matter. The trial court has

not considered that the civil suit is expressly barred and at the time of

consideration of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, only

plaint averments are relevant. The plaintiff has even not properly

valued the suit and the court fee was not accordingly paid. The trial

Court has committed material irregularity in holding that section 9 of

the CPC would be applicable. The suit filed by the plaintiff is not

maintainable. The impugned order passed by the trial Court is bad in

law and is not sustainable, hence learned counsel prays that the

impugned order be set aside.

4.

Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the

prayed made by counsel for the petitioner by supporting the impugned

order passed by the Court below.

5.

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions

advanced by both the parties and carefully examined the documents

filed along with present revision.

6.

The trial Court has dismissed the application filed on

behalf of the petitioner under order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. On the basis of

that, the matter should be adjudicated on the basis of the pleadings

filed by the defendant and other objections should be decided on the

basis of the evidence given by both the parties on merit. Therefore,

short question that arises for consideration of thie petition is whether

an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC ought to be decided on

the allegations in the plaint and filing of the written statement and

3

evidence on merit is irrelevant and unnecessary.

7.

In such circumstances, Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. which

reads as under:

"11. Rejection of plaint.-The plaint shall be rejected

in the following cases:-

(a) Where it does not disclose a cause of action;

(b) Where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the

plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the

valuation within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do

so;

(c) Where the relief c