Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nitin vs Surat Singh on 26 February, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CR-316-2013
(NITIN Vs SURAT SINGH)
6
Jabalpur, Dated : 26-02-2018
Shri Aseem Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri A. Usmani, learned counsel for the respondent.
This revision petition by defendants is directed against the order
of trial Court dismissing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 Code
sh
of Civil Procedure, 1908, vide its order dated 10.05.2013.
e
Facts relevant and necessary for disposal of this present civil
ad revision in nutshell are to the effects that plaintiff had brought a suit Pr seeking declaration that four successive sale deeds being executed on 25.02.2012, 15.03.2012 and 15.05.2012 allegedly in favour of the a hy defendants by the plaintiffs are null and void as have been procured by misrepresentation and playing fraud upon the plaintiff based on ad alleged agreement of sale.
M Defendants moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC interalia contending that each transaction of sale since is of of independent nature; therefore, clubbing of all the sale transactions in rt one suit for aforesaid declaration tantamounts to misjoinder of cause ou of action and therefore, the suit deserves to be dismissed at the threshold.
C The trial Court while referring to the plaint averments and the h date of the transactions viz-a-viz the parties to the transaction has ig reached a conclusion that all the four transactions are amongst the H same parties allegedly by playing fraud upon the plaintiffs. Moreover, none of the sale deeds sought to be annulled were barred by time for such an action.
Under these circumstances trial Court relying upon the judgment of this Court reported in Kanhaiyalal v. Keshodas: AIR 1961 SC MP 46 has concluded that as there is an allegation of collusion and connivance of defendants playing fraud upon the plaintiff and all the sale deeds since emanates from the same agreement of sale, there is no requirement of filing of independent suits seeking declaration of sale deeds as null and void and accordingly rejected the application.
Having perused the orders impugned and submissions advanced in the opinion of this Court the trial Court did not commit any error of law that or fact while rejecting the application relying upon the ratio of the decision reported in Kanhaiyalal (supra).
As such civil revision is sans merit dismissed.
(ROHIT ARYA)
JUDGE
e sh
ad
Digitally signed by LORETTA RAJ
Date: 2018.02.28 10:31:28 +05'30' Pr loretta a hy ad M of rt ou C h ig H