Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2807 (RAJ)

Hazari Lal v. Ram Nathi

2011-12-21

PREM SHANKER ASOPA

body2011
Hon'ble ASOPA, J.—This is defendants revision petition filed against the order dated 6.10.2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Digod, Kota whereby application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the defendants has been rejected. 2. The brief facts of the case are that in the civil suit filed by the plaintiff-non-petitioners for cancellation of the release deed and permanent injunction, the defendant-appellants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11CPC. 3. In the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the defendant-petitioners have raised the objection that the plaintiff under valued the suit and the same is further barred by limitation on account of expiry of three years from the date of registration of the release deed i.e. 4.12.2006. 4. It is settled position of law that for deciding the jurisdiction of the Court, the averment of the plaint is to be seen. 4. It is settled position of law that for deciding the jurisdiction of the Court, the averment of the plaint is to be seen. The relevant portion of Para 6 n to 11 as well as the relief made in the plaint is as follows: Para 6 n to 11 ^^¼6½ n- fd mDr oknxzLr Hkwfe ij vkt Hkh okfnuh dk vius fgLls dh Hkwfe ij dCtk gS rFkk okfnuh us dHkh Hkh vius 1@6 fgLls dh Hkwfe ij izfroknh ua- 1 o 2 dks dCtk lqiqnZ ugha fd;k vkSj u gh vius gd dks R;kx fd;k gSA bl dkj.k mDr rFkkdfFkr R;kxi= fujLr gksus ;ksX; gSA ¼7½ ;g fd mijksDr fjyht MhM ds vk/kkj ij izfroknh ua- 1 o 2 us okfnuh dks fnukad 28-6-2010 ,oa 12-9-2010 dks /kedh nh gS fd os mDr fjyht MhM o jktLo fjdkWMZ ds vk/kkj ij mDr Hkwfe dks jgu o cspku rFkk [kqnZ cqnZ dj nsaxsA ftldk fd izfroknh ua 1 o 2 dk dksbZ vf/kdkj izkIr ugha gSA ¼8½ ;g fd mijksDr ifjfLFkfr esa okfnuh dks vf/kdkj izkIr gS fd og vius fof/kd vf/kdkjksa ds j{kkFkZ izfroknh ua- 1 o 2 }kjk okfnuh ls csbZekuh iwoZd] "kM;a= jpdj] >wBs dFku djrs gq, QthZ rkSj ij djk;s x;s R;kxi= dks ekuuh; U;k;ky; dh lgk;rk ls okfnuh fujLr ,oa uy o oksbZM ?kksf"kr djok;s rFkk izfroknh ua- 1 o 2 dks LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ds tfj;s oknxzLr Hkwfe dks jgu] cspku o vUrj.k o [kqnZ cqnZ djus ls :dok;sA ¼9½ ;g fd okn dkj.k fnukad 28-6-2010 dks izfroknh ua- 1 o 2 }kjk okfnuh dks ikarh dh Qly o jde vnk ugha djus o fjyht MhM djk ysus o okfnuh ds fgLls dh Hkwfe vius uke ntZ gks tkus dh loZizFke dgus ij o fnukad 29-6-2010 dks jktLo fjdkWMZ dh udys izkIr djus ij gksus o fnukad 18-8-2010 fjyht MhM dh udy izkIr djus o fnukad 12-9-2010 dks izfroknh ua- 1 o 2 }kjk Hkwfe dk cspku djus dh /kedh nsus ij iSnk gqvkA ¼10½ ;g fd ekuuh; U;k;ky; dks okn dk Jo.kkf/kdkj izkIr gSA dkj.k fd fookfnr Hkwfe ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds {ks=kf/kdkj esa fLFkr gS ,oa mDr leLr dk;Zokgh Hkh ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds vf/kdkj {ks= esa lEiUu gqbZ gSA ¼11½ ;g fd U;k; 'kqYd o vf/kdkj {ks= ds iz;kstukFkZ okn dk ewY;kadu fjyht MhM nLrkost dks fujLr djkus dh ?kks"k.kk ds fy, #- 300 ,oa LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ds fy, #- 400@- fu;r fd;k tkrk gS vkSj okn mfpr U;k;ky; 'kqYd ij vof/k e/; is'k gSA Relief made in the plaint vr% okn is'k dj Jheku~ ls fuosnu gS fd okfnuh dk okn Lohdkj fd;k tkdj okfnuh ds i{k esa izfroknhx.k ds fo:) fuEu vk'k; dh vkKk o fMØh tkjh dh tkosA v- fd fMØh }kjk ;g ?kksf"kr fd;k tkos fd okfnuh ds }kjk izfroknhx.k }kjk muds i{k esa "kM;a= iwoZd /kks[kk/kM+h djrs gq, fnukad 19-8-2006 dks vkysf[kr fd;k x;k rFkk rFkkdfFkr fjyht MhM tks fnukad 4-12-2006 dks is'k fd;k rFkk dk;kZy; lc jftLVªkj] nhxksn ds ;gka iqLrd la[;k 1 ftYn la[;k 14 i`"B la[;k 113 Øe la[;k 2006001815 fnukad 4-12-2006 dks iathc) gks jgk gS] dks okfnuh ds fo:) csvlj] izHkkoghu] uy ,oa oksbZM ,oa fujLruh; gSA c- fd LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk bl vk'k; dh izlkfjr dh tkos fd izfroknhx.k okn i= dh en uEcj 1 esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa ls okfnuh ds 1@6 fgLls dh Hkwfe dks fdlh izdkj ls jgu] cspku] vUrj.k o [kqnZ cqnZ ugha djs rFkk okfnuh dks mlds fgLls dh Hkwfe ls eg:e ugha djsA l- fd okn O;; okfnuh dks izfroknhx.k ls fnyk;k tkosA n- fd vU; U;k;ksfpr lgk;rk gks og Hkh okfnuh dks izfroknhx.k ls fnykbZ tkosaA** 5. A bare perusal of the aforesaid reliefs would reveal that not only the declaration of the release deed dated 19.8.2006 being ineffective, null and void, liable to be set aside, but the injunction has also been sought. 6. The Trial Court, after considering the averments of the plaint came to the conclusion that apart from declaration, the injunction has also been claimed, therefore, at that stage, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in a composite nature of civil suit is not maintainable. While considering the averments of the plaint, the Court has also considered the fact that as per the averments of the civil suit, the defendant hatched conspiracy while preparing the release deed dated 19.8.2006 and further registering the same on 4.12.2006 and the said fact came to her knowledge only on 26.9.2010 when she obtained the copies of the revenue record, therefore, the civil suit is within limitation from the date of knowledge i.e. 26.9.2010. 7. The Trial Court further came to the conclusion that the application is to be decided as per the averments of the plaint and at that stage, valuation of the property in question could not be determined and further, from the date of knowledge i.e. 26.9.2010, the civil suit is not barred by time and further, the same cannot be decided at this stage and another aspect which was considered by the Court is that the present case is not a simple case of declaration but the same is of injunction also which is not barred by any objection raised raised by the defendants, therefore, he dismissed the application at that stage. 8. Submission of counsel for the defendants is that the civil suit is under valued as per Sec. 24 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961, therefore, the relief of declaration cannot be granted. Apart from that, the same is barred by limitation from 19.8.2006. 9. I have gone through record of the revision petition and further considered the aforesaid submissions. 10. Apart from that, the same is barred by limitation from 19.8.2006. 9. I have gone through record of the revision petition and further considered the aforesaid submissions. 10. This Court is of the view that the Trial Court has rightly considered the law on the question that the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is to be decided as per the averments of the plaint and further rightly came to the conclusion that the civil suit is of composite nature and the valuation of the property in dispute cannot be properly decided at that stage of the filing of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and further the civil suit is not barred by the date of knowledge i.e. 26.9.2010, as averred in the plaint and further, the same cannot be decided at this stage, therefore, rightly dismissed the application at that stage. 11. The revision petition has no force and the same is dismissed.