Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 811 (JHR)

Suresh Prasad Gupta v. Manjubala Jaiswal

2023-06-26

ANANDA SEN

body2023
JUDGMENT : ANANDA SEN, J. 1. The petitioner, in this application, has challenged the order dated 16.7.2022 passed in M.C.A. No. 304 of 2021 in Original Suit No. 307 of 2020/Eviction Suit No. 12 of 2012 by the learned Additional Munsif-XXV, Ranchi, whereby the learned court below has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Order VII Rule 11 CPC provides for rejection of a plaint. A plaint can be rejected where it does not disclose a cause of action, or where inspite of time given by the Court, the valuation of under valued suit is not corrected, or the plaint is written upon a paper insufficiently stamped and the plaintiff fails to supply the requisite stamp, or where the suit appears to be barred by any law from the statement of the plaint itself, or where it is not filed in duplicate or where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provision of Rule 9. For better appreciation, it is necessary to quote Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which reads as follows: “11. Rejection of plaint - The plaint shall 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 returned 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 barred by any law. (e) where it is not filed in duplicate. (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9. (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. (e) where it is not filed in duplicate. (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9. Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.” Thus on the aforesaid grounds only a plaint can be rejected in terms of Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 4. While dealing with an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the entire plaint has to be read as a whole, as held by Hon'bler Supreme Court in Abdul Gafur and Another vs. State of Jttarakhand and Others, (2008) 10 SCC 97 . Further no evidence can be looked into for invoking the aforesaid jurisdiction. It is well established that at the stage of invoking order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court should examine the pleadings made in the plaint and from the pleadings if the conditions specified in Order VII Rule 11 CPC is satisfied, then only the Court can exercise the jurisdiction and reject the plaint. At the stage of exercising power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the stand of the defendant in the written statement or in the application for rejection of the plaint is wholly immaterial, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in the case of P.V. Guru Raj Reddy vs. P. Neeradha Reddy and Others, AIR 2015 SC 2485 . On this legal proposition, this case has to be decided. 5. The plaintiff filed Original Suit No. 307 of 2020/Eviction Suit No. 12/2012 (copy of the plaint has been annexed) praying therein the following reliefs: “(a) Decree for delivery of khas and vacant possession of the suit property described in Schedule below to the plaintiffs after evicting the defendant and all persons claiming through or under him. 5. The plaintiff filed Original Suit No. 307 of 2020/Eviction Suit No. 12/2012 (copy of the plaint has been annexed) praying therein the following reliefs: “(a) Decree for delivery of khas and vacant possession of the suit property described in Schedule below to the plaintiffs after evicting the defendant and all persons claiming through or under him. (b) Decree for realization of Rs.2,52,000/-from the defendant as arrears rent for past three years at the rate of Rs.7,000/-per month as arrears rents for the earlier periods of default starting from May 2005 have become barred by limitation. (c) Costs of and incidental to the suit. (d) Further other reliefs to which the plaintiff may be found entitled whether at law or in equity.” 6. The plaintiff claimed to be a land lady in respect of the suit property bounded by boundary walls. It is further mentioned that in phased manner starting from 1993, the defendant had taken tenancy and users rights of different portion of the suit property on temporary basis. Composite tenancy for fixed period of 11 months was effected from April 2004. As per the plaint, the rent of the premises was fixed verbally at Rs.7,000/-. The plaintiff claims that the defendant has accepted the status and is running a hotel. There is a documented obligation of the defendant which is dated 15.2.1993, wherein the rent was shown to be Rs.3,000/-per month. Thereafter, there is reference of several documents, which according to the plaintiff suggest that fresh tenancy was created on monthly rental basis. In paragraph 7, it has been mentioned that after expiry of the eleven months, calculated from 17.5.2003, the defendant did not vacate the premises. Further, it has been mentioned that in March 2005, the defendant persuaded the plaintiff to agree to let out the entire house including the part of which was being occupied by the plaintiff on consolidated monthly rent of Rs.7,000/-. In paragraph 9, it has been pleaded that the defendant failed and neglected to pay rent from the month of March 2005 and thus defaulted in making payment of rent for more than seven years, which makes him liable to be evicted. In paragraph 10, it has been mentioned that the defendant is doing some illegal activities and has damaged the property, as he is using the property for storing pilferage commodities like Castic Soda etc. In paragraph 10, it has been mentioned that the defendant is doing some illegal activities and has damaged the property, as he is using the property for storing pilferage commodities like Castic Soda etc. There is allegation that unauthorised addition and alternation of the permanent structure has been made without taking consent. Further, the plaintiff pleaded that the premises is required for her own purpose but the defendant is not vacating the same. This is the sum and substance of the plaint. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grounds taken in the plaint is frivolous and improbable. It is his contention that it is unbelievable that the rent of one room and Varanda in the year 1993 was 3,000/-per month and the rent of four rooms and two big halls in the year 2000 would be Rs.2,500/-per month. As per him, the averments made in the plaint are bogus, meaningless, fake and improper. He controverts each and every paragraph of the plaint. He also in Court denied and controverted each and every statement made in the plaint. 8. During hearing the thrust of the argument of learned counsel is mainly upon denying and controverting the statements and pleadings made in the plaint rather than confining his argument to the principles of Order VII Rule 11 CPC. On repeated occasions, learned counsel went on arguing and tried to impress on the truthfulness, correctness and vagueness of the plaint and as per him, the entire plaint should be rejected on this ground. The argument advanced by the counsel was exclusively on the merits of the case and is in relation to his denial of the statements made in the plaint. On repeated request to limit his prayer on the principle envisaged under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, his arguments were haywire. He also relied upon three judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which are as follows: 1. Pearlite Liners (P) Ltd. vs. Manorama Sirsi, (2004) 3 SCC 172 2. T. Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal and Another, (1997) 4 SCC 467 3. Rajendra Bajoria and Others vs. Hemant Kumar Jalan and Others in Civil Appeal Nos. 5819-5822 of 2021 9. From perusal of the plaint, I find that there is a cause of action. As per the plaint, the defendant is tenant who is at default from May 2005. T. Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal and Another, (1997) 4 SCC 467 3. Rajendra Bajoria and Others vs. Hemant Kumar Jalan and Others in Civil Appeal Nos. 5819-5822 of 2021 9. From perusal of the plaint, I find that there is a cause of action. As per the plaint, the defendant is tenant who is at default from May 2005. Further, as per the plaintiff, the suit property is being wasted and damaged, which is evident from paragraph 10 of the plaint and also in paragraph 13, there is a pleading that the property is needed by the land lady for her personal use. These are definitely a cause of action to file the eviction suit. Thus, it cannot be said that there is no cause of action which is a condition to invoke Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Admittedly, it is not a case of the petitioner-defendant that the suit is under valued or it has been filed in a paper not property stamped. It is not the case of the defendant that the suit is barred by any law. The prayer and pleadings are specific. Whether the same are correct or not, is to be decided only after leading evidence where the plaintiff has to prove the case. If the plaintiff is able to prove her case, the relief can be granted to the plaintiff as there is no bar of any law in granting such relief. 10. Thus, I find that the defendant has not made out any case to invoke the provision of Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed.