Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Manju vs Sunderbai W/O Mangilal Ojha (Died) ... on 10 April, 2024
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 10th OF APRIL, 2024
CIVIL REVISION No. 26 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
SMT. MANJU W/O SANTOSH KUMAR AGRAWAL, AGED ABOUT
50 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST AND HOUSEWIFE
R/O PIPLIYAMANDI TEHSIL MALHARGARH DISTT. MANDSAUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT/PLAINTIFF
(MR. DILIP SINGH PANWAR, ADVOCATE FOR APPLICANT)
AND
SUNDERBAI W/O MANGILAL OJHA (DIED) THROUGH LRS.
JAGDISHCHANDRA S/O MANGILAL OJHA, AGED ABOUT 68
1.
YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED R/O CHAKRAWATI COLONY
STATION ROAD MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
SUNDERBAI W/O MANGILAL OJHA (DIED) THROUGH LRS.
ANIL KUMAR S/O MANGILAL DIED THROUGH LRS SMT.
2. KRISHNA W/O LATE NIL KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
VAISHNOKRIPA, BHAGWAT NAGAR, RAMTEKARI,
MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
SUNDERBAI W/O MANGILAL OJHA (DIED) THROUGH LRS.
ANIL KUMAR S/O MANGILAL DIED THROUGH LRS VIJAY S/O
3.
LATE ANIL KUMAR OJHA VAISHNOKRIPA, BHAGWAT
NAGAR, RAMTEKARI, MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
SUNDERBAI W/O MANGILAL OJHA (DIED) THROUGH LRS.
SUNIL KUMAR S/O MANGILAL OJHA, AGED ABOUT 61
4.
YEARS, OCCUPATION: RET. VAISHNOKRIPA, BHAGWAT
NAGAR, RAMTEKARI, MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
SUNDERBAI W/O MANGILAL OJHA (DIED) THROUGH LRS.
NAVINKUMAR S/O MANGILAL OJHA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
5.
OCCUPATION: LAWYER 5, PARAKH COLONY, STATION
ROAD, MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. RAJENDRA S/O MOD. SINGH RAJPUT, AGED ABOUT 65
2
YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE (MADHYA PRADESH)
BAGDU SINGH S/O AMAR SINGH RAJPUT DIED THROUGH
LRS KAMAL KUNWAR W/O LATE BAGDU SINGH, AGED
7.
ABOUT 60 YEARS, PIPLIYAPANTH TEH. MALHARGARH, DIST.
MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
BAGDU SINGH S/O AMAR SINGH RAJPUT DIED THROUGH
LRS JASWANT SINGH S/O LATE BADU SINGH, AGED ABOUT
8.
40 YEARS, PIPLIYAPANTH TEH. MALHARGARH, DIST.
MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
BAGDU SINGH S/O AMAR SINGH RAJPUT DIED THROUGH
LRS TUFAN SINGH S/O LATE BAGDU SINGH, AGED ABOUT 31
9.
YEARS, PIPLIYAPANTH TEH. MALHARGARH, DIST.
MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
BAGDU SINGH S/O AMAR SINGH RAJPUT DIED THROUGH
LRS LADKUNWAR D/O LATE BAGDU SINGH, AGED ABOUT 38
10.
YEARS, PIPLIYAPANTH TEH. MALHARGARH, DIST.
MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
BAGDU SINGH S/O AMAR SINGH RAJPUT DIED THROUGH
LRS KUSHALKUNWAR D/O LATE BAGDU SINGH, AGED
11.
ABOUT 35 YEARS, PIPLIYAPANTH TEH. MALHARGARH,
DIST. MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
BAGDU SINGH S/O AMAR SINGH RAJPUT DIED THROUGH
LRS RAMKUNWAR D/O LATE BAGDU SINGH, AGED ABOUT
12.
33 YEARS, PIPLIYAPANTH, TEH. MALHARGARH DIST.
MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
BAGDU SINGH S/O AMAR SINGH RAJPUT DIED THROUGH
LRS GHEWARKUNWAR D/O LATE BAGDU, AGED ABOUT 29
13.
YEARS, PIPLIYAPANTH TEH. MALHARGARH, DIST.
MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
STATE OF M.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR MANDSAUR DIST.
14.
MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....NON-APPLICANTS/DEFENDANTS
(MR. NARENDRA KUMAR MEHTA, ADVOCATE FOR NON-
APPLICANTS NO.1,2,3,4,6,7,8)
(MR. MAYANK MISHRA, ADVOCATE FOR NON-APPLICANT
NO.14/STATE)
(MR. LOKENDRA SINGH JHALA, ADVOCATE FOR NON-
APPLICANT NO.5)
This revision coming on for orders this day, the court
passed the following:-
ORDER
This civil revision has been preferred by the 3 applicant/plaintiff under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') has been filed against the order dated 05.12.2023 passed by Civil Judge, Class-II, Narayangarh in Civil Suit No.243-A (Old No.63-A) by which the application filed by the applicant under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of counter claim filed by the non-applicant has been rejected.
(2) The facts of the case in nutshell is that the present applicant/plaintiff filed a civil suit against the present non- applicants/defendants under Order 7 Rule 1 of CPC, 1908. The applicant/plaintiff in the civil suit sought possession for the land bearing survey no.1, having rakba, 1.00 hectare situated at village- Pipliyapanth, Tehsil-Malhargarh, District-Mandsaur (MP) and the applicant/plaintiff is a bonafide purchaser of the land in question and the land was purchased from the non-applicant/defendant No.2.
(3) The learned trial court issued notice in the suit and the matter was fixed for appearance of non-applicants/defendants No.1 to 4. After receiving the notice, the non- applicants/defendants No.2 and 3 filed their separate written statement cum counter claim. The counter claim filed by the non- applicants/defendants No.2 is rejected by the court but the counter claim filed by the non-applicant/defendant No.3 is allowed by the trial court.
(4) The applicant/plaintiff filed the order 7 Rule 11 CPC application submitting that the defendant No.3 has not disclosed the cause of action in his counter claim so the counter claim is not 4 maintainable.
(5) After hearing counsel for both the parties, the trial court has rejected the application filed by the plaintiff.
(6) Being aggrieved by the impugned order, this revision has been preferred by the applicant/plaintiff and has submitted that it is settled position of law and pleadings of the plaint and counter claim but the trial court without considering the settled legal position has rejected the Order 7 Rule 11 CPC application. So prays for setting aside the impugned order and also prays for rejection of counter claim.
(7) Counsel for the defendant No.3 supported the impugned order and prays for rejection of this revision.
(8) I have heard counsel for both the parties and have perused the documents filed by the plaintiff.
(9) Counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that in the counter claim the defendant No.3 has not disclosed any cause of action.
(10) In the case of Raghvendra Sharan Singh Vs. Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead Representative) reported in 2020 Vol.16 SCC 601, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that plaint is liable to be rejected that if on a meaningful, not formal, reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his power under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. A perusal of the record shows that the contention of defendant is immaterial.
5(11) In the present case, the counter claim filed by the defendant No.3 before the trial Court is Annexure-P/3. A perusal of Annexure-P/3 counter claim filed by the defendant No.3 is that there is not any single word used for disclosing the cause of action and right to sue. So a perusal of the pleadings in the counter claim filed by the defendant No.3 is that there is lack of pleadings in regard to the cause of action so it was found that defendant No.3 is unable to disclose the cause of action, so there is no cause of action disclosed in the counter claim then such counter claim is not maintainable.
(12) So, in the considered opinion of this court, the trial court has committed error in holding the maintainability of counter claim filed by the defendant No.3. So the impugned order passed by the trial court is not correct and is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is hereby set-aside. The revision filed by the applicant/plaintiff is allowed and the counter claim filed by the defendant No.3 is rejected.
(13) With the aforesaid, the revision stands allowed and is disposed of, in above terms.
(14) Certified copy, as per Rules.
(HIRDESH) Arun/- JUDGE ARUN Digitally signed by ARUN NAIR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH INDORE, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH INDORE, 2.5.4.20=d5b56e3de75e7828ced1a96bc4f0 1804c3ea1f0a5497e4019e41c0a82cbabbf0, NAIR postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh, serialNumber=192F2423E128DC1CC004DD 8FF22B3F2FFC3D1EF75981FCBEF3B2B7682 3F270F7, cn=ARUN NAIR Date: 2024.04.16 20:14:40 +05'30'