Case Note & Summary
The present Civil Revision Application was filed by the applicants, who were original opponent Nos. 2 and 3, against the judgment and order dated 12.03.2024 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gondal, in Regular Civil Suit No. 184 of 2019, rejecting their application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of land bearing Survey No. 105/5 paiki (New Survey No. 241), admeasuring about 1-13-08 hectares, claiming to be the owner and in possession of the suit land. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants (applicants) had illegally constructed a water tank and encroached upon approximately 50 gunthas of the land. The applicants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that it did not disclose a cause of action and was barred by law. The trial court rejected the application, holding that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and that disputed questions of fact could not be decided in such a summary proceeding. Aggrieved, the applicants filed the present revision. The High Court heard learned advocate Mr. Rituraj M Meena for the applicants and learned AGP Mr. Chirag B Upadhyay for the respondents. The court examined the plaint allegations and found that the plaintiff had clearly asserted ownership and possession and alleged encroachment by the defendants. The court held that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and that the suit was not barred by any law. The court further held that disputed questions of fact regarding title and possession could not be adjudicated in an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The court dismissed the revision application, upholding the trial court's order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - Cause of Action - The court held that the plaint disclosed a cause of action as the plaintiff claimed ownership and possession of the suit land and alleged illegal construction and encroachment by the defendants. Disputed questions of fact regarding title and possession cannot be decided in an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The trial court's rejection of the application was upheld. (Paras 1-6) B) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - Barred by Law - The court held that the suit was not barred by any law merely because the defendants were government officials acting in official capacity. The plaint must be read as a whole and only if it appears manifestly barred can it be rejected. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaint in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding land ownership and encroachment is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on the ground that it does not disclose a cause of action or is barred by law.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application, upholding the trial court's order rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
Law Points
- Order 7 Rule 11 CPC
- rejection of plaint
- disputed questions of fact
- summary dismissal
- civil suit
- declaration and injunction
