Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 510 (RAJ)

Gurmeet Singh v. Devkaran

2023-02-14

MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

body2023
ORDER : Mr. Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - This civil revision petition is filed by the unsuccessful defendant against the order dated 06.02.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Thanagazi (for brevity "the learned trial Court") in Civil Suit No.34/10/2023 whereby, an application filed by him under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed. 2. The relevant facts in brief are that the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff") filed a suit against the defendant with the averments that a residential Bada as described in Para 1 of the plaint situated in village Guwara Bandipul, Tehsil Thanagazi, District Alwar was under his ownership and possession since the time of his ancestors in which he has raised construction of a residential house. It was alleged that the defendant wants to dispossess him forcibly and interfere with in his use and occupation of the suit premises. Therefore, a decree of permanent injunction was prayed for. The defendant filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC stating therein that the plaintiff has not specified the Khasra number in which the disputed residential Bada was situated and he has filed the suit wrongly reckoning the agricultural land as residential. Rejection of the plaint was sought as Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short "the Act of 1955") bars jurisdiction of Civil Court with regard to agricultural land. The application has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 06.02.2023, impugned herein. 3. Assailing the order, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, inviting attention of this Court towards the contents of the plaint and the site plan appended therewith, submitted that the plaintiff has deliberately not disclosed the Khasra number in which the subject property is situated which, from the meaningful reading of the plaint, appears to be agricultural land. He submits that from the Commissioner report dated 01.02.2023 and copies of the Jamabandi placed on record alongwith the memo of the revision petition, it is apparent that the nature of subject land is agricultural. Referring to a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal and Anr.: (1977) 4 SCC 467 , learned Senior Counsel submitted that it was imperative for the learned trial Court to have subjected the plaintiff to examination under order 10 CPC to unearth the true nature of the subject land. Referring to a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal and Anr.: (1977) 4 SCC 467 , learned Senior Counsel submitted that it was imperative for the learned trial Court to have subjected the plaintiff to examination under order 10 CPC to unearth the true nature of the subject land. He, therefore, prayed that the civil revision petition be allowed, the order dated 06.02.2023 be quashed and set aside and the application filed by him under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC be allowed. Learned Senior Counsel, in support of his submissions, relied upon following judgments:- 1. Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead through legal representatives and Ors.: (2020) 7 SCC 366 . 2. Karan Singh and Ors. v. Manu Bal Sikshan Sansthan and Ors.: S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.54/2015 decided on 09.05.2018. 3. Heard. Considered. 4. The learned trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the defendant on the premise that the plaint did not disclose the subject land to be agricultural in nature. This Court has gone through the contents of the plaint and the site plan appended therewith and does not find that the same to be reflecting the nature of subject land to be agricultural; rather, it is specifically mentioned in the plaint that it is a residential Bada which is being used by the plaintiff for the purpose of his residence. Under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) CPC, a plaint can be rejected if it appears from the statements made therein to be barred by any law. Of course, Section 207 of the Act of 1955 bars entertainment of a suit for permanent injunction by a Civil Court if its subject-matter is agricultural land; but, as already held, it is nowhere reflected from the holistic view of the plaint and the site plan appended with it that nature of the subject land is agricultural. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned trial Court did not err in dismissing the application filed by the defendant. 5. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned trial Court did not err in dismissing the application filed by the defendant. 5. Submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner based on Commissioner's report and the Jamabandi placed alongwith the memo of the revision petition, does not merit acceptance inasmuch as it is trite law that for consideration of an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, the contents of the plaint and documents appended therewith, if any, only are relevant and defence of the defendant(s) cannot be looked into at this stage. 6. Contention of the learned Senior Counsel that concealment of Khasra number of the subject property in the plaint gives an inference that its nature is agricultural, cannot be countenanced in view of the fact that there is complete description of the subject property in Para 1 of the plaint and in the site plan appended therewith. Even otherwise also, mere absence of Khasra number of the subject property in the plaint does not lead to an inference that its nature is agricultural. 7. The judgments relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner are of no assistance to him. In case of T. Arivandandam (supra), their Lordships have held that if on a meaningful-not formal-reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, learned Munsif should exercise his power under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC taking care to see the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. If the clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 CPC. 8. In the present case, as held by the learned trial Court and concurred by this Court after careful perusal of the contents of the plaint and the site plan annexed therewith, it is nowhere reflected that the subject land is agricultural in nature so as to bar jurisdiction of the Civil Court. 9. 8. In the present case, as held by the learned trial Court and concurred by this Court after careful perusal of the contents of the plaint and the site plan annexed therewith, it is nowhere reflected that the subject land is agricultural in nature so as to bar jurisdiction of the Civil Court. 9. In case of Dahiben (supra), Hon'ble the Apex Court of India held that the underlying object of Order 7, Rule 11 (a) CPC is that if in a suit, no cause of action is disclosed, or the suit is barred by limitation under Rule 11 (d) CPC, the Court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in the suit. In such a case, it would be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation, so that further judicial time is not wasted. It is further held therein, if, however, by clever drafting of the plaint, it has created the illusion of a cause of action, the Court must be vigilant against any camouflage or suppression and determine whether the litigation is utterly vexatious and an abuse of the process of the Court. In that case, application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC was allowed on the ground of suit being barred by limitation after taking into consideration the contents of the plaint as also the documents relied upon including the sale deed in question. 10. This Court is in respectful agreement with the broad proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the aforesaid case; but, there is no reason in the present case to infer that the plaintiff is guilty of suppression of material fact and the suit is hit by the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 (d) CPC. 11. In case of Karan Singh and Ors. (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court has allowed the revision petition preferred by the defendants against rejection of their application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC inasmuch as from the documents filed alongwith the plaint such as the agreement dated 20.09.1999 and the release deed executed in the year 2014, the subject land was indicated as an agricultural land and absence of any reference in the plaint about the nature of land being agricultural made no difference. However, in the present case, it is specifically mentioned in the plaint that the subject property is residential. 12. However, in the present case, it is specifically mentioned in the plaint that the subject property is residential. 12. In view of the aforesaid factual foundation and the legal backdrop, the revision petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.