Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjeev Kesharwani vs Devendra Kumar Saini on 16 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52584
1 CR-1074-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT
ON THE 16th OF OCTOBER, 2025
CIVIL REVISION No. 1074 of 2025
SANJEEV KESHARWANI AND OTHERS
Versus
DEVENDRA KUMAR SAINI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Falgun Yadav - Advocate with Ms.Annapurna Nahar - Advocate
for the petitioner.
Shri Gajendra Parashar - P.L. for the respondent/State.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved
by the order dated 1.8.2025 passed by 4th Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sagar
in RCSA No.270/2024, whereby an application submitted by the petitioner
defendant under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC has been dismissed.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no
correct position defining the identity of the property in the plaint map and as
such in absence of the identity, no cause of action has been accrued to the
respondent plaintiff to file the present suit and, therefore, he has filed the
application, which has been dismissed on the ground that the relief and the
facts which have been asserted in the application are not covered under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC. To bolster his submission, the petitioner has relied
on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Ramkishan Patel Vs.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52584
2 CR-1074-2025
Omprakash Mishra and others, in F.A.No.1866/2023 vide judgment and
decree dated 21.3.2025 to state that the petitioner cannot be forced to litigate
a frivolous litigation which has got no cause of action. It is submitted that
relying on the judgment of Hon. Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan
and others Vs. M/s Swaika Properties and another, (1985) 3 SCC 217 , it is
held that 'cause of action' means every fact which, if traversed, it would be
necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment
of the court. It is further submitted that Order VII Rule 3 CPC provides that
the plaintiff has to demonstrate and plead identity of the property clearly and
in absence of such pleading, no effective decree can be passed.
3. Considered the submissions of the petitioner and perused the record.
4. It is evident from the impugned order that the court below has
rejected the application on the ground that the relief which has been sought
by the petitioner by way of application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, is not
covered under the provision of Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The petitioner has
claimed that because the respondent plaintiff has not clearly shown the
identity of the property, the cause of action has not accrued to the respondent
to file the present suit. From bare perusal of plaint, annexure A/1, the cause
of action has been pleaded by the respondent/plaintiff. In fact, in the relief,
the plaintiff has clearly stated the boundaries of which the declaration has
been sought. If there is any infirmity in the map and the boundaries which
has been pleaded, then it is a matter of evidence which cannot be decided at
the stage of Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. The principle which has been relied
by the petitioner in the case of Ramkishan Patel (supra) and M/s Swaika
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52584
3 CR-1074-2025
Properties (supra), it is evident that both these judgments have been passed
by this Court and the Hon. Apex Court respectively after due enquiry in the
suit. The cause of action which has been defined by the Hon. Apex Court in
the case of M/s Swaika Properties ( supra) also state that it would be
necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment
of the court, meaning thereby that such infirmity in regard to disclosure of
the identity is a matter of proof and cannot be decided at the stage of Order
VII Rule 11(d) CPC. To decide the application it is settled law that pleadings
of the plaint are germane. No other document is required to be seen. In fact,
no inference can be drawn only on the defence of the petitioner defendant,
that is always subject to trial.
5. As such, the petition of the petitioner sans merit and is hereby
dismissed.
(DEEPAK KHOT)
JUDGE
HS
