Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 150 (RAJ)

Shashikant Sharma, S/o Kailash Chand Sharma v. Hanuman Sahay Choudhary, S/o Kalyan Sahay Chaudhary

2026-02-05

MANEESH SHARMA

body2026
ORDER : MANEESH SHARMA, J. 1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 28.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge No.18, Jaipur Metropolitan-I in Civil Suit No.464/2025, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC was rejected. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendant No.1/petitioner, claiming possession on the basis of the letter dated 20.11.2017, and sought a decree for permanent injunction against the defendant No.1/petitioner. In the plaint, it was narrated that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 is in lawful possession of the suit property and the plaintiff/respondent No.1 is bent upon forcefully dispossessing him. In the plaint, the plaintiff pleaded that the cause of action accrued on 05.09.2025, the date on which defendant No. 1/petitioner allegedly vandalized the suit property and attempted to forcibly evict the plaintiff therefrom. 3. After service upon the defendants, the defendant No.1/petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC, and sought rejection of the plaint inter alia on the grounds that: the suit is barred by Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ('SRA, 1963'), there is non-joinder/ misjoinder of necessary parties, the suit is undervalued and the plaintiff has paid insufficient Court fee, the suit is frivolous/vexatious in nature, the suit does not disclose any cause of action, and the suit is barred by limitation. 4. Thereafter, the plaintiff/Respondent No.1 chose not to file a written reply to the application, opting instead to advance oral arguments. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 vehemently contested the said application while submitting that the alleged grounds for rejection of the plaint are baseless. Further, it was argued that the suit was instituted within the prescribed period of limitation and clearly disclosed a valid cause of action. It was further argued that the objections regarding misjoinder or non-joinder of parties fall outside the scope of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC; it was therefore asserted that the defendant No.1/petitioner's application sans merit, and the plaintiff/respondent No.1 prayed for dismissal of the application. 5. It was further argued that the objections regarding misjoinder or non-joinder of parties fall outside the scope of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC; it was therefore asserted that the defendant No.1/petitioner's application sans merit, and the plaintiff/respondent No.1 prayed for dismissal of the application. 5. After hearing the arguments of both parties, the learned Trial Court, vide the impugned order dated 28.10.2025, dismissed the \ defendant No. 1/petitioner's application, while observing that, when considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court must confine itself to the averments made in the plaint, and not venture beyond the plaint, and that the grounds of rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC are not attracted in the instant case. 6. Being aggrieved of which, the defendant No.1/petitioner preferred the present revision petition. 7. It is apt to reproduce the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, which reads as under: "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: 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." 8. Learned counsel for the defendant No.1/petitioner submits that the learned Court below seriously erred in rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC, overlooking the grounds therein and stressed that the present suit is barred by 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, liable to be rejected for want of non-joinder/misjoinder of the parties, liable to be rejected due to undervaluation and insufficient Court fee, since the plaint does not disclose the cause of action, the present suit is frivolous in nature, the present suit is barred by JDA Act and lastly, the present suit is barred by law. 9. Heard and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the defendant No.1/petitioner and perused the material available on record. 10. From bare perusal of the plaint, it is reflected that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant No.1/petitioner, claiming possession on the basis of the letter dated 20.11.2017 and sought decree for permanent injunction against the defendant No.1/petitioner. 11. With regards to the objection raised qua the plaint not disclosing any cause of action; on a detailed examination of the plaint it is reflected that in para No.9 of the plaint, the plaintiff/respondent No.1 has asserted that he is in possession and the defendant No.1/petitioner wants to dispossess the present respondent by taking law into his own hands, therefore, he may be restrained not to dispossess the plaintiff/respondent No.1 from the suit property among other reliefs. Further, it is also reflected that the cause of action has been clearly disclosed in para No.14 of the plaint. 12. Further, with regards to the objections raised by learned counsel for the defendant No.1/petitioner qua the suit being barred by Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and non- joinder/misjoinder of necessary parties, such objections cannot be considered under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC as it does not fall within the ambit of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. 13. As far as the objection regarding undervaluation and insufficient Court fee is concerned, the valuation of the suit has been done in para No.15 of the plaint, where it is also clear that the requisite Court fee has been paid according to the nature of the relief sought. 13. As far as the objection regarding undervaluation and insufficient Court fee is concerned, the valuation of the suit has been done in para No.15 of the plaint, where it is also clear that the requisite Court fee has been paid according to the nature of the relief sought. Here it is also pertinent to note that the bar under Clause (c) of Order Rule 11 of CPC is not attracted when the concerned Court has not directed the plaintiff to pay deficient Court fee, thus, the objection so raised by learned counsel for the defendant No.1/petitioner holds no merit. 14. Coming to the objections qua the suit being frivolous/vexatious in nature, and suit being barred by limitation. From a perusal of the averments in the plaint, it cannot be said the suit is frivolous or vexatious in nature or is barred by limitation. 15. Lastly, with regard to the objection qua the plaint being barred by Section 99 of the JDA Act, 1982, it is evident that the defendant No.2 (the JDA itself) has not raised any such objection and it is always open for the defendant No.1/petitioner to contend or raise all such grounds during the course of the trial. 16. Upon a perusal of the impugned order dated, it is evident that that the learned Trial Court, after carefully examining the plaint and considering the petitioner's objections, rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. The learned Trial Court also carefully considered all the objections raised by the defendant No.1/petitioner; and has rightly held that none of these grounds fall within the scope/ambit of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, more particularly Clause (a) and (d), as there is a valid cause of action made out in the plaint and the statements made in the plaint cannot be termed to be barred by any law. 17. Moreover, while considering the objections raised by the petitioner, the learned Trial Court in the impugned order has rightly held that the pleas raised by the petitioner are mixed questions of fact and law, which cannot be considered at the stage of hearing an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, as the same would amount to conducting a 'Mini Trial', which is consonance with the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Sharda Devi Vs. Iqbal Singh & Ors., S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.105/2013 18. Iqbal Singh & Ors., S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.105/2013 18. It is trite law that, while considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, only the averments of the plaint are required to be examined, and from a bare perusal of the plaint, it is abundantly clear that the plaint discloses a valid cause of action and from the statements made therein, the present suit cannot be termed to be barred by any law. Thus, the learned Trial Court has rightly held that the present case does not attract the grounds enumerated under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. 19. Even otherwise, the petitioner is always at liberty to make his submissions in the written statement, which will be duly considered by the learned Trial Court during the course of the trial. 20. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned award dated 28.10.2025 does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, perversity, or any legal infirmity so as to warrant any interference by this Court under the jurisdiction conferred by Section 115 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 21. Accordingly, the present Civil Revision Petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 22. The stay application and all other pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.