Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 20 (JHR)

Inder Koiri v. State of Jharkhand

2019-01-03

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2019
ORDER : 1. The petitioners, who are defendant nos. 1 to 3 in Original Suit No. 69 of 2016, are aggrieved of the order dated 05.07.2017 by which their application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed. 2. Contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that it is the duty of the court to infer from the plaint averments, on a meaningful reading of the plaint, whether the plaintiff has created an illusion of rights which, in fact, he does not possess and in such a situation, the court is empowered to exercise its powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 3. Mr. Kumar Harsh, the learned counsel for the petitioners to fortify the aforesaid stand of the petitioners has relied on a decision in “T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal and Another” reported in AIR 1977 SC 2421 . 4. Briefly stated, Original Suit No. 69 of 2016 has been instituted by Kurra Oraon and Budu Oraon for a decree for declaration of their right, title, interest and possession over the suit land against the defendant nos.1 to 3. The plaintiffs have pleaded that they belong to Oraon community in which according to their customs when a male Oraon dies without a son his properties would not devolve upon his widow or daughter. The plaintiffs claiming that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property have asserted that the land comprised under Khata No. 138, Plot No. 240, area 1.75 acres situated at village-Chiterkotta, P.S- Ratu within Thana No. 89, District-Ranchi is recorded in the name of Sukra Oraon, Matla Oraon and Chumnu Oraon and their ownership is Kaimi in nature. The plaintiffs are descendants of Sukra Oraon and Matla Oraon. In their application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC the defendant nos. 1 to 3 have raised various objections. They have asserted that the suit is vexatious in nature, it is barred by limitation and under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. They have also pleaded that the plaintiffs have not disclosed complete facts which may constitute a valid cause of action for instituting the suit and, not only that, they have suppressed vital and material facts in the plaint. 5. The plaintiffs have pleaded as under : “9. They have also pleaded that the plaintiffs have not disclosed complete facts which may constitute a valid cause of action for instituting the suit and, not only that, they have suppressed vital and material facts in the plaint. 5. The plaintiffs have pleaded as under : “9. That the falsity of the claim of the defendant would be evident from the entry made in the finally published Revisional Survey Record of Right.” 10. That the plaintiffs are absolute owner of the suit land and have right, title, interest and possession therein. 11. That the defendant want to grab the suit land and he has started to claim illegally while the land of Schedule Tribe cannot be acquired by any non-tribal. 12. That the ownership of the land of Schedule Tribe cannot be passed to non-tribal. 13. That the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, defendant no. 4 has been impleaded in order to meet the provision contained in Order I Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by Bihar Scheduled Area Regulation 1969 although no relief is being claimed against defendant no. 4. 14. That the plaintiff requested the defendant no. 1 several times not to put forward any claim over the suit lands but they are not paying any heed to it and as such the plaintiffs are left with no option but to file the instant suit.” 6. On a bare reading of the aforesaid plaint averments, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs have not disclosed cause of action for instituting the suit. Moreover, cause of action is a bundle of facts which the plaintiffs would be required to establish by leading evidence and, in the above facts, this is not the stage when one can assert with certainty that the plaintiffs have not established any cause of action for instituting the suit. It is also true that a plea of limitation is a mixed question of law and except in exceptional cases where on a bare reading of the plaint averment it can be found that the suit is barred by limitation, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Whether the suit is vexatious in nature or the plaint does not disclose complete and correct facts are the issues on which the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC cannot be maintained. Whether the suit is vexatious in nature or the plaint does not disclose complete and correct facts are the issues on which the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC cannot be maintained. The judgment in “T. Arivandandam” case, on which the learned counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance, indicates that it is the duty of the court to read the “plaint averments” meaningfully and this judgment does not lay down that on the basis of the defence which a defendant can put in the written statement or raise in an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the court can exercise its powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint. 7. In the aforesaid facts, the learned trial Judge has rightly rejected the application of the defendant nos. 1 to 3, who are the writ petitioners. 8. Finding no infirmity in the impugned order dated 05.07.2017, the writ petition is dismissed.