Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2191 (RAJ)

Navratan MalAnr v. LR’s of Late Purshottam Das

2013-12-05

ARUN BHANSALI

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the order dated 31.10.2012 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) West, Bhilwara, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order Vll Rule 11 C.P.C. has been rejected. 2. The suit was filed in the year 1994 and the same is pending consideration. It appears that the application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. was filed on 23.9.2005 by the respondent-Urban Improvement Trust seeking dismissal of the suit for non-compliance of provisions for prior notice, the said application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. filed by the respondent-Urban Improvement Trust came to be rejected by order dated 1.2.2006. Further it appears that the suit was dismissed in default and the ownership of the strip of land was transferred in favour of the petitioner by way of registered lease-deed dated 12.11.2008. The petitioner thereafter filed an application, after the suit was restored at the instance of the plaintiffs, under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. seeking dismissal of the suit, inter alia, on the ground that no prior notice was issued to the Urban Improvement Trust and that the suit did not disclose any cause of action. The Trial Court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that since the rejection of application filed by the Urban Improvement Trust on 1.2.2006 under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C., there is no material difference in the plea raised by the parties and, therefore, the second application on the same subject matter was not maintainable. 3. Having gone through the record of the revision petition and hearing the Counsel, no case for interference is made out. 4. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioners that in view of the changed circumstances wherein registered document has been executed during the period when the suit was dismissed in default, the suit itself has been rendered infructuous. It would open for the petitioners to take appropriate proceedings in this regard. With the above observations, the revision petition is dismissed. Stay application is also dismissed. Petition dismissed. *******