Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 200 (RAJ)

Jagdish Rao @ Jagdish Singh v. Suman Chaudhary

2023-01-17

NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

body2023
ORDER : 1. By way of this revision petition under section 115 CPC, petitioner-defendant(for short 'the defendant') has challenged the order dated 06.07.2022 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 8, Jaipur Metropolitan 1st (for Short 'the trial Court) in Civil Suit No. 11/2021 titled as "Suman Chaudhary v. Nagar Nigam & Ors., whereby application filed by the defendant under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the trial Court while deciding the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC filed by the defendant totally ignored the fact that the respondent No. 1-plaintiff (for short 'the plaintiff) had no cause of action. Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that the plaintiff wrongly claimed that she is owner of plot No. 126 and having possession over it. Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that the Jaipur Development Authority (for short 'the JDA') in the year 2002 had not approved the plot No. 126 in S. B. Vihar Scheme, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that the plot No. 126 was not in existence at the time of approval of the plan by JDA. Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that the plaintiff could have filed the suit against the housing society which remedy was not availed by her. Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that the JDA in the year 2002 accepted the layout plan and chalked out the road on the maximum part of plot No. 126 and remaining part was depicted in the map as non approved. The defendant had purchased the remaining part of the strip of land from Nagar Nigam, Jaipur, as per law. Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that the plaintiff had not given a notice as per the legal requirement to file the suit against the Nagar Nigam. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that the plaintiff had made a reference and appeal before the JDA, Tribunal and JDA Tribunal had dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff vide order dated 21.11.2017. The said order became final, so, plaintiff cannot challenge the same suit by way of suit. Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that the plaintiff had prepared a forged patta with the connivance of the members of the society because her name was not mentioned in the list of the members. The said order became final, so, plaintiff cannot challenge the same suit by way of suit. Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that the plaintiff had prepared a forged patta with the connivance of the members of the society because her name was not mentioned in the list of the members. So, order dated 06.07.2022 passed by the trial Court be set-aside and suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the defendant has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- (1) Rohit Singh v. Vishambhar Dayal Shukla reported in 2014(2) RLW 1367(Raj.); (2) Durga Bai v. Ayyub Begum reported in 2019 (5) AndhLD 243 (SC); (3) State of Karnataka & Anr. v. All India Manufacturers Organization & Ors. reported in AIR 2006 SC 1846 ; (4) Dahi Ben v. Arvind Bhai Kalayan Ji Bhanushali L.R. and Ors. reported in AIR 2020 SC 3310 ; (5) Ragvendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead) by L.R. reported in 2019 (2) WLC SC Civil 53; (6) Temple of Thakur Shri Mathur Das Ji, Chotabhandar v. Shri Kanhiya Lal & Ors. reported in 2008(3) WLC Raj.534; (7) K. Akbar Ali v. K. Umar Khan reported in AIR 2021 SC 1114 ; (8) T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal in SLP(Civil) No. 4483/1977 decided on 14.10.1977; (9) Rajendra Bajoriya v. Hemant Kumar Jalaln & Ors. reported in AIR 2021 SC 4594 . 4. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and perused the impugned order. 5. Learned trial Court while dismissing the application filed by the defendant clearly stated that the objections raised by the defendant with regard to res-judicata and cause of action accrued to the plaintiff could be decided only after leading the evidence by the parties. Plaintiff had sought relief to declare the lease deed granted in favour of defendant as a null and void and declaration of owner-ship in her favour. Learned trial Court in its order clearly stated that the said relief could only be given by the Civil Court. So, in my considered opinion, the trial court has not committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the defendant. So, the present revision petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. 6. Pending application/s, if any, also stand/s dismissed.