Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 227 (BOM)

Global Realtors v. Pramila Prakash Naik

2011-02-23

A.P.LAVANDE

body2011
ORAL JUDGMENT A.P. Lavande, J. Heard Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel for the applicants and Mr. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 7(c). 2. Rule, By consent of the learned Counsel for the parties heard forthwith. 3. Both these revision applications are being disposed of by a common judgment since the parties are the same and they arise out of Regular Civil Suit No. 94/2007 pending before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Panaji, Goa. 4. Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 filed the above suit against the applicants and respondent Nos. 8 and 9 seeking declaration that the sale deed dated 21st December, 2006 executed by defendant Nos. 8 and 9 in favour of the applicants is null and void. On behalf of the applicants, who are defendant Nos. 3 (A) to 3(E) in the said suit, two applications were filed on 29th April, 2008. The first application was under Order VII, Rule 11 (d) of C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint and the second application was under Order XII, Rule 6 of C.P.C. for decree on admission. The trial Court after healing both sides, by two separate orders dated 19th March, 2010 dismissed both the applications. 5. Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that before the trial Court several contentions were urged in support of the applications filed under Order VII, Rule 11(d) as well as Order XII, Rule 6 of C.P.C. However, the said contentions have not been adverted to and the learned trial Judge by non-reasoned orders, has disposed of both these applications. According to Mr. Lotlikar, the suit although styled as a suit for declaration was in substance suit for declaration that the plaintiff is a tenant of the suit property, which could not have been granted by the Civil Court and this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Court in the impugned order while disposing of the application under Order VII, Rule 11 of C.P.C. 6. In so far as the application under order XII, Rule 6 of C.P.C. is concerned. Mr. Lotlikar submitted that reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Uttam Singh Duggal and Co. In so far as the application under order XII, Rule 6 of C.P.C. is concerned. Mr. Lotlikar submitted that reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Uttam Singh Duggal and Co. Ltd. v. United Bank of India and others, (2000) 7 SCC 120 , in support of the proposition that in the reply to the application filed under Order XII, Rule 6, of CPC, the plaintiff was bound to deal with the so called admission upon which reliance is placed by the defendants. According to Mr. Lotlikar, the learned trial Judge has not adverted to this aspect of the matter. 7. Mr. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 7(c) although supported the impugned orders, was not in a position to dispute that reliance was placed by the trial Court upon the judgment in the case of Uttam Singh (supra). 8. Perusal of the impugned orders discloses that the trial Court has not dealt with several aspects canvassed before it in support of the applications filed under Order VII, Rule 11 and Order XII, Rule 6 of C.P.C. Needless to mention that when the applications under Order VII, Rule 11 of C.P.C. and/ or under Order XII, Rule 6 of C.P.C. are/is filed for disposal of the suit, the trial Court has to deal with the contentions raised by the defendants and pass a reasoned order dealing with the said contentions. In my considered opinion, such an exercise has not been done by the trial Court while disposing of both the applications. On this ground alone, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 9. In the result, therefore, the impugned orders dated 19th March, 2010 passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Panaji in Regular Civil suit No. 94/2007/C are quashed and set aside. The learned trial Judge to decide the applications dated 29th April, 2008 filed under Order VII, Rule 11 and Order XII, Rule 6 of C.P.C. after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties in accordance with law expeditiously. 10. It is made clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims and the contentions of the rival parties are kept open. 11. Rule is made partly absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. Order as to costs.