Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 861 (JK)

Abdul Majid Ganai v. Mohammad Maqsood Ganai

2017-09-14

SANJEEV KUMAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. This revision petition in terms of Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against order of Munsiff, Qazigund, dated 2nd March 2016, whereby application filed by petitioners - defendants, in terms of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, for rejecting plaint, has been dismissed. 2. The short facts of the case are that respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit, claiming, inter alia, decree for permanent prohibitory injunction against petitioners, restraining them from changing the nature of land by excavating earth soil from the land of defendants and the State land in possession of petitioners 3, situated at Khishgund, Qazigund, Anantnag, existing near and adjacent to land of resondents/plaintiffs. 3. From the bare perusal of contents of plaint, it would transpire that respondents were aggrieved of the activity of excavation undertaken by petitioners on their land, which respondents/ plaintiffs apprehended to be damaging their land and orchard situated adjacent to the land of petitioners. In essence it was suit for enforcement of easementary rights. It is so, as respondents in their plaint have made the following pleadings in paras 6 and 7: “6. That the plaintiffs along with other farmers/land owners approached the revenue officials by virtue of applications and requested them that the defendants should not change the nature of the above said land by excavating the earth from the said lands and to establish the brick kiln over the same. But the defendants neither obeyed the orders of the revenue officials nor pay any heed to the requests of the farmers of the village Khishgund, Qazigund. 7. That in case the defendants are allowed to excavate the soil earth from the above said land which is in their possession or to establish a brick kiln over the said land, that will totally the land and orchard of the plaintiffs above mentioned.” 4. From the perusal of averments made in paras 6&7 of the plaint in conjunction with prayer clause, it is crystal clear that respondents/plaintiffs are only aggrieved of excavation activity undertaken by petitioners, which, as claimed by petitioners, would damage their landed property situated adjacent. From the perusal of averments made in paras 6&7 of the plaint in conjunction with prayer clause, it is crystal clear that respondents/plaintiffs are only aggrieved of excavation activity undertaken by petitioners, which, as claimed by petitioners, would damage their landed property situated adjacent. It appears that on being put on notice, petitioners, instead of filing written statement, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, seeking rejection of plaint on the ground that the dispute sought to be raised by respondents in their suit necessarily pertains to change of nature of soil and therefore cognizable by revenue authorities under Section 133-A and 133-G of Land Revenue Act and that in terms of Section 139 of Land Revenue Act, jurisdiction of civil court was ousted. The application was considered by Trial Court, but the same was dismissed on the ground that the rights, which respondents have agitated in their plaint, are the rights of civil nature and that jurisdiction of civil court has not been excluded by any provisions of Land Revenue Act. 5. I have considered the submissions made and perused the record. 6. The plaint in terms of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, can only be rejected in the following cases: (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be debarred by any law; (e) where it is not filed in duplicate; (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9. 7. The application was apparently moved by petitioners for rejection of plaint on the ground that from the statement in the plaint, the suit before the civil court was barred by Land Revenue Act and therefore, clause (d) was attracted. 7. The application was apparently moved by petitioners for rejection of plaint on the ground that from the statement in the plaint, the suit before the civil court was barred by Land Revenue Act and therefore, clause (d) was attracted. As stated above, it is clearly gatherable from the pleadings in the plaint, particularly when the paragraphs 6&7 are read in conjunction with prayer clause that the suit is one for enforcement of easementary rights and not for enforcement of any rights, which are determinable under the provisions of Land Revenue Act. At the stage of consideration of application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, jurisdiction of the court is limited only to look at the pleadings as they are projected in the plaint and not go even an inch beyond that. That being the position of law, from the pleadings of respondents in the plaint, it cannot be said that the suit is barred by Land Revenue Act or any other Act, nor the jurisdiction of the civil court can be said to have been excluded expressly or by any necessary implication. The order of the learned Trial Court is well reasoned order and does not suffer from any perversity and therefore, does not call for any interference. 8. For the reasons stated above, this revision petition is found to be without any merit and is accordingly, dismissed. 9. Record of the Trial Court be sent down.