Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1143 (GUJ)

Pravinbhai Narendrabhai Bava v. Mahesh S. Patil

2017-07-03

BELA M.TRIVEDI

body2017
ORDER : Bela M. Trivedi, J. The present Civil Revision Application filed by the applicant - original defendant arises out of the order dated 4.5.2016 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Viramgam (hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court”) below Exh. 32 in Regular Civil Suit No. 2 of 2015, whereby the trial Court has dismissed the application of the applicant seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. 2. The opponents - plaintiffs have filed the suit seeking possession of the suit premises and for permanent injunction, restraining the applicant-defendant from transferring or selling or creating any third party right in the suit premises till the possession was handed over. In the said suit, the applicant - defendant had filed application seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that no cause of action having arisen against the defendant and the plaintiffs having not paid the proper Court fees, the plaint was liable to be rejected. The trial Court has rejected the application vide the impugned order. Hence, the present Civil Revision Application has been filed. 3. It is sought to be submitted by the learned Advocate Mr. Jitendra Singh for the applicant that the suit filed by the opponents - plaintiffs was premature in view of the condition No. 17 of the agreement entered into between the parties, and therefore, no cause of action could be said to have arisen as contemplated in Order VII Rule 11. He also submitted that the applicant had not committed any breach of conditions of the lease-agreement, and therefore also, the opponents could not have claimed the possession as prayed for in the suit. According to Mr. Singh, the suit was also not properly valued and the opponents-plaintiffs had not paid the proper Court fees, and therefore, also the plaint was liable to be rejected. 4. The Court does not find any substance in any of the submissions made by the learned Advocate Mr. Singh for the applicant. As transpiring from the plaint, the opponents - plaintiffs have alleged breach of condition Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 14 and 17 of the lease and licence agreement dated 3.6.2013 entered into between the parties, for which the opponents had also served notice to the applicant before filing of the suit. Singh for the applicant. As transpiring from the plaint, the opponents - plaintiffs have alleged breach of condition Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 14 and 17 of the lease and licence agreement dated 3.6.2013 entered into between the parties, for which the opponents had also served notice to the applicant before filing of the suit. In the opinion of the Court, whether there was any breach of any of the conditions of the agreement or not would be a matter of appreciation of evidence to be decided by the trial Court after both the parties lead the evidence. The learned Advocate for the applicant has also not been able to show as to how the suit was not properly valued or the Court fees was not properly paid. As transpiring from the record, the plaint discloses the cause of action in paragraph 7 of the plaint. The Court is not required to see at this stage as to whether the plaintiffs would succeed in the suit or not on such cause of action. The trail Court having rightly considered the application of the applicant and rejected the same, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the said order. 5. In that view of the matter, the Civil Revision Application being devoid of merits is dismissed. The interim relief, if any, stands vacated.