Ramji Lal v Ramrai and others
Rajasthan High Court
JAIPUR BENCH
29 January 2013
The Order of the Court was as follows :
1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant u/s. 115 of C.P.C. challenging the order dated 17.03.2012 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (JD), District Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as “the trial court”) in Civil Suit No. 183/05, whereby the trial court has dismissed the application of the petitioner-defendant filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.
2. It is been submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Hemraj Gaur for the petitioner that the respondents- plaintiffs have filed the frivolous suit against the petitioner-defendant, which was barred by the Limitation Act. He also submitted that the plaintiffs had impleaded the Gram Panchayat Garudwasi as party-defendant No.4 without serving any notice required u/s. 109 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and also without serving any notice to the defendants No.2 & 3 u/s. 80 of CPC. Learned counsel has also submitted that the plaintiffs were also not entitled to get any relief under the provisions contained in Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, however the trial court without considering the said provisions has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.
However, the learned counsel Dr. P.C. Jain for the respondents-plaintiffs supporting the impugned order passed by the trial court, submitted that the plaintiffs had already sought permission of the Court u/s. 80 of CPC for filing of the suit against the defendants No.2 & 3 and had also submitted an application seeking deletion of the defendant No.4 from the array of the defendants.
3. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsels for the parties, it appears that pursuant to the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11, the trial court vide the impugned order has rejected the plaint qua the defendant No.4-Gram Panchayat on the ground that the requisite notice under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act was not served by the plaintiffs, however has not accepted the other grounds for which the rejection of the plaint was sought by the petitioner-defendant. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel Dr. Jain, for the respondents, whether the plaintiffs would succeed in the suit in view of the provisions contained in the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 or not, would be the matter of evidence and the same could not be decided in the application under Order VII Rule 11. So far as the notice u/s. 80 of CPC required to be given to the defendants No.2 & 3 is concerned, Dr. Jain has drawn the attention of the Court that necessary permission of the Court was already sought by the plaintiffs. Under the circumstances, the Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial court.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has also failed to point out as to under which law the suit of the plaintiffs was barred, so as to reject the plaint of the plaintiffs under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC.
4. In that view of the matter the revision petition being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court is directed to expedite the proceedings of the suit.
Revision dismissed
