Jharkhand High Court
Defendant/ vs Karam Kumhar Son Of Shivcharan Kumhar ... on 4 March, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
C.M.P. No. 216 of 2025
----
Badhu Kumhar aged about 43 years son of late Yogeshwar Kumhar
resident of Village Bundu Dangar Toli, PO and PS Bundu, District Ranchi
....... Defendant/ Petitioner
-- Versus --
Karam Kumhar son of Shivcharan Kumhar resident of Block Road, Raidhi,
PO and PS Tamar, District Ranchi ....... Opposite Party
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K.Sahani, Advocate
For the Opposite Party(s) :
----
4/04.03.2025 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
for setting aside the order dated 05.09.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge
(Junior Division), Ranchi in Misc. Civil Application No.240 of 2024 arising out of
Original Suit No.298 of 2023 whereby the petition filed by the petitioner under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been rejected by the learned court.
3. Mr. Sahani, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submits that on 05.07.2023 the plaintiff/opposite party has instituted a suit
being Original Suit No.298 of 2023, inter alia, for a decree of specific
performance of agreement dated 15.2.2017 for sale of the unit land with a
direction upon the defendant/ petitioner to execute and register deed of sale in
favour of the opposite party upon receipt of the balance consideration money
and expenses, if any. He submits that the plaintiff/ opposite party has disclosed
in the plaint inter alia the land appertaining to plot no.340 under Khata no.281
measuring an area of 58 decimals, 99 decimals of plot no.355, 21 decimals of
plot no.722 and 3 decimals of plot no.776, total area of 1.81 acres stood in the
name of Shivcharan Gossin and Gurucharan Gosain who died issueless.
Thereafter the ex-land lord settled the said land in favour of Lakhiram Kumhar
vide Hukumnama dated 29.8.1950 and recognized him as a raiyat. Lakhiram
Kumhar applied for mutation and his name was mutated. He died leaving
behind Yogeshwar Kumhar and Jainath Kumhar. Yogeshwasr Kumhar died
leaving behind the defendant/petitioner, whereas, Jainath Kumhar died
issueless. He submits that the plaintiff opposite party agreed to sell 99 decimals
of land appertaining to plot no.355 under Khata no.281 and accordingly,
plaintiff/ opposite party paid an advance of Rs.11000/- at the time of execution
of agreement dated 15.2.2017 and thereafter he paid Rs.2,56,000/- on different
occasions endorsing the same in the agreement but the defendant/petitioner
evaded to execute the sale deed. He submits that it was alleged that the
defendant/ petitioner has also received a sum of Rs.20,000/- on 25.2.2023.
Accordingly, the plaintiff/ opposite party sent a legal notice on 6.2.2023 but the
defendant/ petitioner responded the said legal notice stating that the
agreement in question is a false and fabricated document. He submits in this
background on receiving the summon the petitioner herein has appeared and
filed written statement and petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC which has
been rejected by the learned court. He submits that the suit was barred by
limitation and cause of action was not clearly disclosed in the plaint and in view
of that the said petition was filed, however, the learned court has rejected the
same on erroneous ground. He submits that the case of the petitioner is
covered in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Sajra) Dead Through Legal
Representatives and Others reported in (2020) 7 SCC 366. On this
ground he submits that the impugned order may kindly be set aside.
4. Annexure-3 is a document which is the application under Order VII Rule
11 CPC filed by the petitioner. In para-4 the grounds have been taken that the
agreement is a manufactured document and in para-5 further it is stated that
the said document is a forged document and if such a ground is there, the
question remains as to whether in absence of any evidence to be made by
either of the parties merely by filing of the said petition under Order VII Rule 11
CPC can be allowed or not? If such a situation is there that is required to be
proved in the trial as the allegations are made that the document itself is a
forged one and at the threshold merely by way of filing petition under Order VII
Rule 11 CPC cannot be so. The further ground is taken that the cause of action
is not clearly stated. The learned trial court has found that the cause of action
in para-18 has been disclosed as 15.02.2017, 25.02.2023 and 27.02.2023 and
the suit was instituted on 25.07.2023 and in view of that the learned court has
found that the cause of action is there. If primafacie the cause of action is
there, the learned trial court has rightly passed the said order as the cause of
action is bundle of facts and that can be proved by way of leading the evidence
in the trial court. The plaint did not disclose the cause of action and the onus to
discharge was upon the defendant. The argument and contention made in the
CMP is still pending and the allegation made at this stage under Order VII Rule
11 CPC the trial court is only restricted to look into the plaint and to find out
whether any prima facie cause of action is made out or not. The averments
made in the present plaint may or may not be cases of absolute privilege. It is
also well settled that the cause of action is always a bundle of facts. It is only
after the trial that will be known whether they will qualify as one or the other.
In these circumstances it cannot be said that the plaint discloses no cause of
action. In fact, the petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC are the defense and
that cannot be looked at this stage and in view of that the learned court has
rightly passed the said order.
5. There is no illegality in the impugned order, and as such, C.M.P. No. 216
of 2025 is dismissed.
6. However, dismissal of this petition will not prejudice the case of either of
the parties.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
SI/
A.F.R.
