Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 346 (RAJ)

Mang Singh v. Ashok

2000-03-13

N.P.GUPTA

body2000
JUDGMENT 1. - By this revision, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order of the learned trial Court, whereby the petitioner's application u/O. 7, R. 11 CPC, has been dismissed. The contention raised by the petitioner in the application was that the plaintiffs have filed the suit without any title, without any contract of tenancy, without any cause of action, mischievously and fraudulently, and with an intention to usurp the petitioner's property by filing a suit in the name of "Man Singh" and in the guise of this suit, the plaintiffs want to play fraud and dispossess the petitioner. According to the petitioner, since the plaintiffs have not filed any document of title, nor does he know the petitioner who is "Mang Singh"? Likewise, the plaintiffs have also alleged the defendant to have encroached upon certain apartments, while the entire building is of the ownership of the defendant and the defendant is not the tenant of anybody. The petitioner further alleged in the application to be ready to file counter claim by paying full Court fees. On these averments, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the plaint was required to be dismissed u/O. 7, R. 11 CPC. 2. As against this, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-non-petitioners submitted that the petitioner is simply desiring to take advantage of accidental error of "Man Singh" as against "Mang Singh". According to the learned counsel, the summons of the suit were served for hearing of 22.7.1998, which summons were received by the petitioner's son Jorawar on 6.7.1998 and in response to that summon, the present petitioner entered appearance through one Advocate, sought time to file written statement. According to the learned counsel, it is significant to note that the petitioner never raised the objection about the summons being not relating to him or he being unconcerned with the suit, nor did he ever submit that "Man Singh" S/o Dan Singh Rawal is anybody else than the petitioner. On the other hand, on 18.1.1999, the petitioner himself moved an application for correction of the title of the suit by requesting that the plaintiffs be directed to correct the name of the defendant in the suit and, accordingly, on that very day, the learned trial Court corrected the name. On the other hand, on 18.1.1999, the petitioner himself moved an application for correction of the title of the suit by requesting that the plaintiffs be directed to correct the name of the defendant in the suit and, accordingly, on that very day, the learned trial Court corrected the name. Advancing the argument further, the learned counsel submitted that the contentions raised in the application filed u/O. 7, R. 11, CPC, even if take on their face value, do not make out any ground for dismissal of the suit u/O. 7, R. 11, in as much as, all those contentions relate to the merits of the suit as to whether the plaintiffs are owner of the property or whether the defendant is tenant of the property or whether the defendant has encroached upon any part of the property or whether the defendant having acquired title by adverse possession, the suit is barred or the like. The learned counsel contends that for the purpose of deciding application u/O. 7, R. 11, CPC, the averments of the plaint only are to be read and the plaintiffs have clearly alleged themselves to be the owner of the property having purchased it by registered sale deed, this purchase and seller having informed the petitioner about the sale, the plaintiffs have also alleged the defendant-petitioner to have committed default in payment of rent and to have encroached upon portion of the property not let out to him, so also, the property being in dilapidated condition, the defendant is liable to eviction. In such circumstances, according to the learned counsel, all facts constituting cause of action, have been pleaded in the plaint and the circumstances has rightly been dismissed by the learned trial Court. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions and have gone through the record. 4. The learned trial Court has clearly observed that the defendant can very well take appropriate objection which can be gone into only during trial and the plaint cannot be dismissed u/O. 7, R. 11, CPC. In my view, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in AIR 1977 SC 2421 , which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the present is a case, where no interference is required in the impugned order. In my view, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in AIR 1977 SC 2421 , which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the present is a case, where no interference is required in the impugned order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that a meaningful not formal reading of the plaint, is the relevant criteria to decide as to whether the suit is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that in appropriate circumstances, the trial Court would insist imperatively on examining the party at the first hearing, so that, bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest. 5. Thus, I have to read this plaint meaningfully and not formally and, on such meaningful reading, I find that the plaintiffs have clearly disclosed cause of action to maintain a suit against the petitioner. I do not mean to say that in all circumstances, the plaintiffs will be successful in proving suit, as it is the defendant who, has yet to project his version and then the questions, on which the parties at variance, are to be adjudicated in accordance with law. However, taking hint from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, I think it appropriate that the learned trial Court, in the circumstances, may consider as to whether it would be proper to first examine the parties u/O. 10, R. 1, CPC, after the written statement is filed. 6. Taking an overall view of the matter, the least that is required to be said is that the impugned order is eminently just and proper and required no interference. 7. The revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed, with no order as to costs. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 3.4.2000.Revision dismissed. *******