Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1483 (RAJ)

Ram Singh S/o Shri Balor Singh v. Balvindra Singh S/o Shri Mukand Singh

2016-10-07

SANGEET LODHA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sangeet Lodha, J. This writ petition is directed against order dated 19.9.16 passed by the Civil Judge, Sri Ganganagar, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner-defendant under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint, stands dismissed. 2. The relevant facts are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioners and the respondents no.2 to 5 herein, in respect of plot no.115 measuring 60x80 sq. ft. comprising Square no.11, Kila No. 25 in chak 501 LNP. The suit is filed by the plaintiff on the strength of a patta of the land issued in his favour on 10.6.99, by the Gram Panchayat, 18 ML Hirnawali. 3. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners-defendants preferred an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the patta dated 10.6.99 issued in favour of the plaintiff by the Gram Panchayat without following the procedure laid down, is null and void. The petitioners contended that the disputed land is agriculture land and therefore, the Gram Panchayat had no jurisdiction to issue patta. The petitioners further contended that the plaintiff has not given the true and correct description of the property and therefore, the plaint is liable to be rejected for this reason also. That apart, it was contended that the half portion of the land is admittedly occupied by Baba Tejpuri Kutia and therefore, for the remaining land, the Gram Panchayat had no authority to issue the patta. 4. After due consideration, the application has been rejected by the court below observing that from perusal of the plaint, in no manner, it can be inferred that it is barred by law or it does not discloses the cause of action. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the patta issued in favour of the plaintiff by the Gram Panchayat is null and void and therefore, the suit for permanent injunction based upon such patta, is not maintainable. Learned counsel submitted that admittedly, no constructed house is existing on the plot in question and therefore, the Gram Panchayat could not have issued the patta of the disputed plot in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of old possession under Rule 157 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Rules, 1996. Learned counsel submitted that admittedly, no constructed house is existing on the plot in question and therefore, the Gram Panchayat could not have issued the patta of the disputed plot in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of old possession under Rule 157 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Rules, 1996. Learned counsel urged that the land in question is agriculture land and therefore, for this reason also, no patta could have been issued by the Gram Panchayat and thus, the suit as framed does not disclose any cause of action. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, the patta on the strength of which the suit is filed by the plaintiff, is a forged document, which does not confer any title to the plaintiff over the plot in question. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record. 7. It is settled law that while deciding an application for rejection of plaint under Order 7, Rule 11, the court is not competent to go into correctness or otherwise of the allegations contained in the plaint. The plaint can only be rejected if from bare perusal of the statement in the plaint without any addition or subtraction, it appears to be barred by law or it does not disclose the cause of action. 8. Admittedly, the plaintiff has filed the suit for injunction claiming title over the disputed plot on the strength of patta issued by the Gram Panchayat. It is open for the petitioners to contend that the patta issued by the Gram Panchayat in favour of the plaintiff without authority of law, is null and void and further that the Gram Panchayat had no jurisdiction to issue the patta of the disputed land, which is agriculture land. Obviously, if the contentious issues, as aforesaid, are raised by the petitioners-defendants by filing a written statement, which being mixed questions of law and facts, could be decided by the trial court on the basis of the evidence to be led by the parties. But, in any case, from the perusal of the plaint, in no manner, it can be inferred that the suit as framed is barred by law or it does not discloses the cause of action. 9. But, in any case, from the perusal of the plaint, in no manner, it can be inferred that the suit as framed is barred by law or it does not discloses the cause of action. 9. In this view of the matter, the order impugned passed by the court below, rejecting the application preferred by the petitioners under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 10. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed in limine.