Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Radheshyam Goyal & Anr vs Mahaveer on 17 May, 2017
Author: Sangeet Lodha
Bench: Sangeet Lodha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Revision No. 73 / 2017
1. Radheshyam Goyal S/o Late Shri Bhagwandas Goyal, Aged
About 68 Years, B/c Agrawal,
2. Pankaj S/o Radheshyam Goyal, Aged About 38 Years, B/c
Agrawal, Both Are Residents of 23-K Block-south Division,
Sriganganagar. (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
Mahaveer S/o Shri Baldev Krishna, B/c Agrawal, Resident of 23-K
Block East Division, Sriganganagar (Raj.)
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Hemant Jain with Mr.Kshitiz
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
Order 17/05/2017
1. This revision petition is directed against order dated 16.3.17 passed by the Civil Judge, Sri Ganganagar in Civil Suit No.173/14, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner-defendant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint, stands dismissed.
2. The relevant facts are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit seeking damages for defamation against the petitioners herein. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners filed an application seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the same does not disclose any cause of action. After perusal of the plaint, the court arrived at the finding that the plaint as framed discloses the cause of action and therefore, (2 of 3) [CR-73/2017] cannot be rejected invoking the provision of Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Accordingly, the application has been rejected. Hence, this petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the plaint does not set out specific particulars/instances, which caused harm to the reputation of the petitioners. Learned counsel submitted that in absence of the facts constituting the cause of action, the plaint was liable to be rejected. Learned counsel submitted that the pleadings were not verified in the manner prescribed and thus, the plaint was rejected for this reason also.
4. It is settled law that while deciding an application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11, the court is not competent to go into correctness or otherwise of the allegations contained in the plaint. The plaint can only be rejected if from bare perusal of the statement in the plaint without any addition or subtraction, it appears to be barred by law or it does not disclose the cause of action.
5. A bare perusal of the plaint reveals that the plaintiff has narrated the details of the various incidents occurred and the defamatory statement spoken by the defendants herein causing harm to his reputation. Whether imputation made has actually harmed the reputation of the plaintiff or not is obviously an issue to be decided by the court on the basis of (3 of 3) [CR-73/2017] the evidence to be led by the parties. But in any case, from the perusal of the plaint, it cannot be inferred that it does not discloses cause of action.
6. In this view of the matter, in the considered opinion of this court, the order impugned passed by the court below does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
7. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed.
(SANGEET LODHA), J.
aditya/