Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1491 (RAJ)

Gurpreet Singh S/o Shri Gurbux Singh v. Surendrajeet Kaur D/o Shri Hargopal Singh

2016-10-17

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2016
ORDER : Vijay Bishnoi, J. This civil revision has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated 10.08.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Regular Civil Case No. 31/2015 (53/2015), whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC has been rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioners before the trial court and sought declaration to the effect that the petitioner No. 1 – Gurpreet Singh is not the adopted son of Sardar Mohinder Singh and the petitioner No. 1 and Gurpreet Singh S/o Sardar Mohinder Singh are two different persons and the so called power of attorney dated 07.03.2005 be declared as nonest and void against her. The respondent also sought a permanent injunction to the effect that the petitioner No. 1 be restrained from declaring himself as adopted son of Sardar Mohinder Singh and be also restrained from taking any action on the basis of the power of attorney dated 07.03.2005 against her. 3. The petitioners filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC with a prayer for rejecting the plaint filed by the respondent on the ground that the suit filed by the respondent is ex-facie time barred and the allegations levelled in the suit are vexatious, bogus and merit-less. It is also contended that several litigations between the petitioners and the respondent are pending in the revenue as well as the criminal Courts, therefore, the suit filed by the respondent be dismissed at the threshold. 4. The respondent filed reply to the application filed on behalf of the petitioners under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC and prayed that the application be rejected. 5. The trial court, after hearing counsel for the parties, has rejected the application filed by the petitioners vide impugned order while observing that the respondent has filed the suit essentially with a prayer that a declaration be issued to the effect that the petitioner No. 1 is not the adopted son of Sardar Mohinder Singh and the said declaration can only be issued by a civil court and not by a revenue or criminal Court. The trial court has further observed that so far as the contention of petitioners that the suit is ex-facie barred by limitation is concerned, the same is also not acceptable because the respondent in her plaint has specifically come with the case that cause of action to file the suit arose to her in January 2015 only. The trial court is also of the opinion that from perusal of the plaint as a whole, it cannot be said that the pleadings are vexatious, bogus and merit-less and, therefore, the suit filed by the respondent cannot be dismissed on this ground. 6. Assailing the validity of the impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that from the averment made in the plaint, it is clear that the respondent came to know about the power of attorney dated 07.03.2005 in the year 2012 itself and admittedly she has filed the suit after three years from the date of knowledge of the said power of attorney and, therefore, the suit filed by the respondent is exfacie time barred. It is contended that the trial court has not taken into consideration this aspect of the matter and illegally rejected the application filed by the petitioners under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. It is also argued that the pleadings contained in the plaint filed by the respondent are vexatious, bogus and merit-less but the trial court has wrongly observed that the pleadings are not vexatious, bogus and merit-less. It is also argued that the respondent has filed a suit when the petitioners have initiated criminal proceedings against her, however, the trial court has not taken into consideration this aspect of the matter. 7. In support of the above contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal & Anr. reported in AIR 1977 SC 2421 and Fatehji & Company & Anr. v. L.M. Nagpal & Ors. reported in 2015 DNJ (SC) 584. 8. 7. In support of the above contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal & Anr. reported in AIR 1977 SC 2421 and Fatehji & Company & Anr. v. L.M. Nagpal & Ors. reported in 2015 DNJ (SC) 584. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the respondent has filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction essentially with a prayer that a declaration be issued to the effect that the petitioner No. 1 is not the adopted son of Sardar Mohinder Singh and the power of attorney dated 07.03.2005 be declared as nonest and void against her and, therefore, it cannot be said that the suit filed by her cannot be tried by the civil court. It is also argued that the respondent in her plaint has specifically come out with a case that the cause of action to file the suit arose to her only in January 2015 and from that date the suit filed by her is very well within limitation. Learned counsel for the respondent has further argued that the averments made in the plaint have to be read as a whole and from the reading of the averments of plaint, it is clear that the pleadings in the plaint are not vexatious, bogus and merit-less and, therefore, the trial court has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioners under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. 9. In support of the above contention, learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in P.V. Guru Raj Reddy Rep. By GPA Laxmi Narayan Reddy & Anr. v. P. Neeradha Reddy & Ors. Etc. reported in 2015 DNJ (SC) 242. 10. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the impugned order as well as the material available on record. 11. There is no quarrel about the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal & Anr. (supra) and Fatehji & Company & Anr. v. L.M. Nagpal & Ors. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the impugned order as well as the material available on record. 11. There is no quarrel about the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal & Anr. (supra) and Fatehji & Company & Anr. v. L.M. Nagpal & Ors. (supra), whereby it is held that a plaint can be rejected if ex-facie it is barred by limitation and a plaint can also be rejected if on meaningful reading of the plaint it appears that the pleadings are vexatious, bogus and merit-less. 12. At the same time, it is also true that the averments made in the plaint have to be read as a whole to find out whether it discloses a cause of action arose to the respondent to file a suit or whether the suit is barred by limitation. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.V. Guru Raj Reddy Rep. By GPA Laxmi Narayan Reddy & Anr. v. P. Neeradha Reddy & Ors. Etc. (supra) has held as under:- "5. Rejection of the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 of the C.P.C. is a drastic power conferred in the Court to terminate a civil action at the threshold. The conditions precedent to the exercise of power under Order 7, Rule 11, therefore, are stringent and have been consistently held to be so by the Court. It is the averments in the plaint that has to be read as a whole to find out whether it discloses a cause of action or whether the suit is barred under any law. At the stage of exercise of power under Order 7, Rule 11, the stand of the defendants in the written statement or in the application for rejection of the plaint is wholly immaterial. It is only if the averments in the plaint ex facie do not disclose a cause of action or on a reading thereof the suit appears to be barred under any law the plaint can be rejected. In all other situations, the claims will have to be adjudicated in the course of the trial." 14. It is only if the averments in the plaint ex facie do not disclose a cause of action or on a reading thereof the suit appears to be barred under any law the plaint can be rejected. In all other situations, the claims will have to be adjudicated in the course of the trial." 14. In the present case, the respondent has come out with a clear case that she came to know about the power of attorney dated 07.03.2005 in the year 2012, however, she contacted with the petitioners and inquired about the said power of attorney then the petitioners assured her that the said power of attorney would not be used against her and they filed an appeal before the revenue court on the basis of the said power of attorney only to create pressure upon one Amarpreet Singh. It is further stated in the plaint that, however, in January 2015 the petitioner No. 1 told the respondent that he would pursue the appeal against the respondent also before the revenue court and at that time, the cause of action arose to her to file a suit. 15. Looking to these averments, it cannot be said that the suit filed by the respondent is liable to be rejected on the ground of limitation. 16. Needless to say that the question of limitation can be decided by the trial court after framing necessary issues and after taking evidence of the respective parties on it. 17. I have also gone through the plaint and found that on the wholesome reading of the plaint, it cannot be said that no cause of action arises to the respondent to file a suit or the pleadings in the plaint are vexatious, bogus and merit-less. 18. Having considered the material available on record, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the trial court. 19. Hence, no interference is called for in the impugned order. 20. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. Stay petition also stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.