Meena Chouhan vs Baijnath Chouhan @ Baijnath-Iii
2022 Latest Caselaw 5004 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   C.M.P. No. 395 of 2021
                          ------

1. Meena Chouhan

2. Shoeo Shanker Chouhan

3. Ramanuj Sharma .... .... .... Petitioners Versus Baijnath Chouhan @ Baijnath-III .... .... .... Opposite Party

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

For the Petitioners : Mr. Anupam Anand, Advocate For the Opp. Parties :

Oral Order 04/ Dated : 09.12.2022

Instant civil miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 09.09.2021 passed in Original (Money) Suit No.35 of 2020 by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-I, Tenughat, Bokaro whereby the learned Court below rejected the petition dated 10.03.2021 under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the C.P.C. wherein the objection raised by the petitioner regarding the maintainability of the suit in question has been rejected.

2. Petitioner is the defendant in Original (Money) Suit No.35 of 2020 which has been filed by the respondent- Baijnath Chouhan @ Baijnath-III for damages suffered by him due to filing of the false and vexatious C.P. Case 392 of 2013 against the plaintiffs and four others in which they have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 448, 323, 379 and 354 of the I.P.C. It has been pleaded that because of the false criminal case, the plaintiff has suffered a paralytic attack and had to be admitted in the hospital on 09.02.2014. He also suffered stigma because of the malicious persecution.

3. The learned Court below rejected the petition filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11a of the C.P.C. on the ground that the defence of the defendants cannot be considered at this stage and the plaint disclosed valid cause of action.

4. Impugned order has been challenged on the ground that Cr. Appeal No.53 of 2020 has been filed against the judgment of acquittal and therefore the acquittal of the plaintiff has not attained finality.

5. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. While considering a petition under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C., the written statement or the plea of defence cannot be considered. The cause of action arose with the acquittal of the accused persons and the civil suit cannot be put on hold merely because appeal against acquittal has been preferred by the defendants. The plaintiff is a 70 years old person and has suffered agony of protracted criminal litigation. If the judgment of acquittal is set aside by the learned Appellate Court, the defendants will be at liberty to bring it on record. Pendency of Criminal Appeal or Criminal Revision cannot be a ground to deny the right of the plaintiff to proceed with the suit in which the cause of action already accrued.

The civil miscellaneous petition stands rejected.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit