Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 725 (MP)

Shyamlata Bindal v. Harnam Gir

2018-08-23

ANAND PATHAK

body2018
ORDER 1. The present civil revision under section 115 of CPC is preferred by the petitioner, arising out of the order dated 20.6.2018 passed by the trial Court, whereby application under Order 7 rule 11 of CPC preferred by the petitioner as defendant has been rejected. 2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that the plaintiff has filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of suit property on the basis of gift deed executed by the husband of defendant No. 1 in favour of plaintiff. The reliefs also contained in the form of direction to the Collector, District Ashoknagar and Tahsildar, Tahsil Nai Sarai, District Ashoknagar for mutation of the name of plaintiff in the revenue records. 3. Defendants appeared in fray and filed an application under Order 7 rule 11 of CPC on the ground that suit is barred by limitation because gift deed alleged to be executed (as per submission of the plaintiff) on 27.7.1983, therefore, if any enforcement is sought in respect of entry in the revenue records, then same ought to have been within three years from the date of execution of gift deed or the date of order dated 21.3.1984 passed by the revenue authority, whereby order of mutation in favour of plaintiff has been made. Now at the belated stage of 33 years, same could not have been raised by the plaintiff. It is further submitted by the counsel on the basis of allegation that after death of Brijmohan Das in the year1996, the suit was not preferred by the plaintiff within 3 years and on the basis of plea taken in respect of adverse possession, the suit is barred by limitation and termination is to be reckoned from the death of Brijmohan Das in the year 1996. Petitioner relied upon the judgement passed by Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Gurdwara Sahib v. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala and another, reported in (2014) 1 SCC 669 . 4. Trial Court rejected the application under Order 7 rule 11 of CPC preferred by the defendant, therefore, the instant revision petition has been preferred. 5. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, trial Court did not consider the submission raised by the petitioner/defendant in the application under Order 7 rule 11 of CPC and caused illegality and perversity. 4. Trial Court rejected the application under Order 7 rule 11 of CPC preferred by the defendant, therefore, the instant revision petition has been preferred. 5. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, trial Court did not consider the submission raised by the petitioner/defendant in the application under Order 7 rule 11 of CPC and caused illegality and perversity. Order has been passed in a slipshod manner with casual outlook in respect of controversy. He relied in the case of Suresh Kumar Dagla v. Sarwan and another, reported in (2014) 14 SCC 254 and in the case of Kuldeep Singh Patharia v. Bikram Singh Jaryal and another, reported in (2017) 5 SCC 354. 6. Learned advocate for the respondent/State and private respondent opposed the prayer and submits that on the basis of plaintiff's allegation, no case was made out for entertaining the application, therefore, trial Court has rightly rejected the same. He relied upon the case of Durga Prasad and others v. Laxminarayan (deceased) through LRs, reported in 2008 (3) MPHT 233 . 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. It is settled in law that reasons are the heartbeat of conclusion. [See S.N.Mukharjee v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1990 SC 1984 and Secretary and Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall v. Hawrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity, reported in (2010) 3 SCC 732 ]. 9. Even otherwise, if any, application is preferred specially affecting mutual rights of the parties, then trial Court is duty bound to deal the contentions raised by the parties in categorical terms and thereafter, reaching to the conclusion on the basis of reasons assigned. If the order impugned is seen on the basis of those para meters, then it appears that the trial Court has not decided the application under Order 7 rule 11 of CPC preferred by the defendant by passing the reasoned order, but erred in deciding the application. 10. It is settled in law that while deciding the application under Order 7 rule 11 of CPC contentions of only the plaint allegation are to be seen and reached to the conclusion, whether it is barred by any law or whether discloses any cause of action or reason contained in the application under Order 7 rule 11 of CPC. 10. It is settled in law that while deciding the application under Order 7 rule 11 of CPC contentions of only the plaint allegation are to be seen and reached to the conclusion, whether it is barred by any law or whether discloses any cause of action or reason contained in the application under Order 7 rule 11 of CPC. In the case of Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. v. Owners and Parties, Vessle M.V. Fortune Express and others, reported in (2006) 3 SCC 100 as well as Kuldeep Singh (Supra), Hon'ble apex Court has given guidelines in this regard. 11. Considering the facts situation of the case as well as law laid down by Hon'ble apex Court as referred above, it appears that the application under Order 7 rule 11 of CPC needs to be decided afresh by passing a reasoned order. 12. Resultantly impugned order dated 20.6.2018 deserves to be set aside and is hereby set aside. 13. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on the next date of hearing and take necessary guidelines from the trial Court regarding arguments to be advanced over the application under Order 7 rule 11 of CPC preferred by the petitioner/defendant. 14. Needless to say that contentions of the parties shall be considered objectively and trial Court shall pass the order without being influenced by any objection in this regard. 15. The present civil revision stands dismissed with the aforesaid directions.