Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Babu Lal vs Shri Ram Dayal on 6 January, 2023
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 9/2023
Babu Lal S/o Shri Ratan Lal, Aged About 55 Years, B/c Brahman,
R/o Manda, Tehsil Marwar Junction, District Pali, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Shri Ram Dayal S/o Shri Ratan Lal, B/c Brahman, R/o
Manda, Tehsil Marwar Junction, District Pali, Rajasthan.
2. Assistant Engineer, Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.,
Sojat Road, District Pali, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Parwat Singh Rathore
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order 06/01/2023 The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 21.11.2022 whereby the application filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected.
The application of the defendant has been rejected by the trial Court with a specific finding that the applicant had not mentioned any of the grounds as available to him under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. The only averment made in the application is that the suit is filed on incorrect facts and that there is no joint electricity connection of the plaintiff and the defendant, on the basis of which, the relief as prayed for in the suit can be granted to the plaintiff.
The trial Court reached to a specific finding that no ground to the effect that the suit is barred by any law or that no cause of (Downloaded on 06/01/2023 at 09:27:32 PM) (2 of 3) [CR-9/2023] action has been disclosed in the plaint, has been taken by the defendant in his application.
This Court also perused the application as filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11, CPC which has been annexed with the present revision petition.
A perusal of the same makes it clear that the said application only states the fact that there is separate electricity connection of the plaintiff and the defendant and both of them are using it independently. It has further been stated in the application that the suit has been preferred on a total wrong fact with an averment that there is a joint electricity connection, therefore, the suit being filed on the wrong facts, the relief of declaration as prayed for cannot be granted.
In the opinion of this Court, the facts as averred in the application cannot be a ground for dismissal of the suit in terms of Order VII Rule 11, CPC. It has nowhere been the averment of the defendant that the suit is barred by any law or that no cause of action has been disclosed in the plaint.
As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the latest case of Gurdev Singh vs. Harvinder Singh [SLP (C) No.19018/2022] decided on 09.11.2022, the ground that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief in the suit, cannot be a ground to reject the plaint at the threshold in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11, CPC. This Court does not find any illegality in the order dated 21.11.2022. The revision petition is therefore, dismissed.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit is barred in terms of the provisions of Transfer of Property Act. No such ground had been raised before the Trial (Downloaded on 06/01/2023 at 09:27:32 PM) (3 of 3) [CR-9/2023] Court and therefore, the said ground cannot be taken into consideration by this Court in revisional jurisdiction. The petitioner would be at liberty to raise the appropriate objections, if any, before the Trial Court.
The stay petition also stands dismissed accordingly.
(REKHA BORANA),J 4-Sachin/-
(Downloaded on 06/01/2023 at 09:27:32 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)