Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3225 (PNJ)

Bheesham Dev v. Krishan Baldev

2010-12-03

MAHESH GROVER

body2010
JUDGMENT Mr. Mahesh Grover, J.:- This revision petition is directed against the order dated 20.8.2009 by which an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the petitioner has been declined. 2. The facts of the case are that an arbitration award came into existence which was in favour of the respondents. They moved an application for making it a rule of Court which application was dismissed on 25.2.2002 by Civil Judge, (Sr. Divn.). The respondents did not assail that order and then after more than 2 ½ years they filed the instant suit with the following prayer:- “Suit for declaration to the effect that the judgment and order dated 25.2.2002 passed by Sh. B.Diwakar Civil Judge, Senior Division the then Panipat in Arbitration case No. 62/2 of 1998 titled as Bheesham Dev vs. Shri Krishan Baldev and Ors. is all together illegal, invalid, void, abinitio, nullity ineffective, inoperative, obtained by playing fraud and by misrepresentation by defendants, same is not binding upon the plaintiff and is liable to be set aside on the grounds noted in para no.4 of the plaint with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants to dispossess the plaintiff forcibly unlawfully from the suit property detailed below.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the instant suit was totally mis-conceived and cannot be permitted to progress and therefore the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was rightly filed but the learned Trial Court has gone wrong in declining the prayer of the petitioner. He contended that if the respondents had any grievance against the order dated 25.2.2002 passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Divn. declining the prayer to make the arbitration award a rule of Court in Arbitration Case no. 62/2 of 1998 then in such an eventuality it was open to him to challenge the said order in appeal or revision, as the case may be, but in no circumstance he can file the suit that the said order be declared ineffective, null, void ab initio. 4. Notice of motion was issued to the respondents who have since been served but no one has come present on behalf of respondent no.1 who is said to be the contesting respondent. 5. In view of this, the Court is left with no option but to proceed to determine the controversy. 4. Notice of motion was issued to the respondents who have since been served but no one has come present on behalf of respondent no.1 who is said to be the contesting respondent. 5. In view of this, the Court is left with no option but to proceed to determine the controversy. The provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 are abundantly clear which are extracted hereunder:- “Order 7 Rule 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 under-valued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to so correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; (e) where it is not filed in duplicate; (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9. Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-papers shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamppapers, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.” 6. The intended scope of the said provision of law is to prevent the abuse of the process of law and the Trial Court has a bounden duty to examine the plaint in the eventuality of such an application being made and exercise this power to reject the plaint after it forms an opinion that it does not disclose the cause of action as also the plaint not disclosing the other ingredients laid down in the aforesaid provisions. 7. 7. If the facts of the instant case are to be seen then the plaint in hand is totally mis-conceived and does not disclose any cause of action and apparently is an abuse of the process of law. The respondents had a remedy under the law to challenge the order dated 25.2.2002 but they did not take recourse to such a procedure and after a lapse of more than 2 years chose to file the instant suit seeking to declare the order passed by the Court of equivalent jurisdiction to declare the order null and void which in the opinion of the Court is totally mis-conceived prayer. For the said reason the Court is of the opinion that the Trial Court was wrong in declining the prayer of the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Consequently, the present revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside as the proceedings in the suit are not maintainable and deserves to be rejected. The matter is remitted back to the learned Trial Court to pass an appropriate order in the light of the observations made above. --------------------