Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Kapoor Chand Sharma vs Addi Civil Judge (J D)&Anr on 13 September, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13597/2008 (Kapoor Chand Sharma V/s. Addl. Civil Judge (JD), Alwar & Ors.) Date of Order :: 13th September, 2011 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Ms. Suman Sharma, for the petitioner. Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore, for the respondent.
By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioners have beseeched to quash and set aside the order dated 10th October, 2008, whereby the learned trial court dismissed the application of the petitioner-defendant filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned order, the case of the petitioner is found to be squarely covered by the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Govind Narayan Versus Shri Baheti Dharmshala & Others rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3422/2008. This Court while dealing with all the provisions of law observed thus:-
Thus, from a bare perusal of the language of Rule 32 of General Rules (Civil), 1986 and Rule 11 of Order 7 CPC, it is found that the court has to see as to whether plaint discloses any cause of action; it is sufficiently stamped; and has been presented within time prescribed for the institution of such a suit. If the plaint does not constitute a cause of action or it is insufficiently stamped or it is barred by law, then in that case, on the basis of report of the Munsrim or Reader, as the case may be, the Court shall reject the plaint invoking the powers under Rule 11 of Order 7 CPC. The Court is not required to pass an order under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC at the behest of the defendant when an application is filed under this provision by the defendant in this regard. The power to attract the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is not conferred on the party to the suit. On the contrary, it is the bounden duty of every Court to obtain the report of the Munsarim or Reader of the Court, as the case may be, and thereafter if the contents of the plaint constitute a cause of action; it is sufficiently stamped and it is not barred by law, the Court shall order to register the plaint and if it does not disclose any cause of action or it is insufficiently stamped or it is barred by law, then without there being any prayer of the defendant, the Court is duty bound to reject the plaint suo-moto. Thus, the power to attract the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is not conferred on the party, but it is conferred on the Court and it is the Court alone, which can exercise the powers to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. If viewed from this angle, it can safely be inferred that the petitioner-defendant had no right to file the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC imploring the Court to reject the plaint and the application was not maintainable.
3. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is found that the learned trial court rightly dismissed the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC by the petitioner-defendant and thus, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
4. In view of above, the writ petition fails and the same being bereft of any merit stands dismissed.
(MAHESH BHAGWATI),J.
Mak/-
46