[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Abdul Samad Khan vs Riyasat Khan on 19 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1648
1 CR-1273-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI
CIVIL REVISION No. 1273 of 2025
ABDUL SAMAD KHAN
Versus
RIYASAT KHAN AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Megha Jain - learned counsel for the petitioner.
Reserved on : 28.11.2025
Pronounced on : 19.01.2026
ORDER
Heard on the question of admission.
2- The petitioner has preferred the present civil revision under Section
115 of CPC arising out of order dated 13.11.2025 passed by learned Additional
District Judge, Tarana, District Ujjain in RCA No. 04 of 2022 whereby the
application filed by the petitioner/respondent under Order VII Rule 11 read with
Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short "CPC") has been
rejected.
3 - Necessary facts for disposal of the present revision, in short, are that
respondent No. 1/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title, partition and
possession with respect to the land bearing Survey No. 997/1/1/1 admeasuring
area 0.204 hectares situated at Village Kayatha, Tehsil Tarana, District Ujjain.
Learned trial Court after framing the issues and going through the evidence,
rejected the suit vide judgment and decree dated 28.10.2021. Being aggrieved by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1648
2 CR-1273-2025
the said judgment, respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal.
4- During the pendency of the appeal, respondent No. 1 executed a
registered sale deed dated 14.07.2023 in favour of Shri Anurag Bhandari and Shri
Ayub Khan. Further, the petitioner/defendant filed an application under Order VII
Rule 11 and Section 151 of CPC for dismissal of the appeal on the ground of
maintainability of appeal.
5 - The respondent No. 1 filed a reply and denied all the averments made
in the application. The respondent No. 1 has also filed a Civil Suit for
cancellation of the sale deed dated 14.07.2023. Learned first Appellate Court has
passed the order dated 13.11.2025 and dismissed the application filed by the
petitioner, against which, present petition has been filed before this Court.
6- It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned
Appellate Court has erred in passing the impugned order dated 13.11.2025
whereby, application filed under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC
has wrongly been rejected. Learned Appellate Court has failed to consider the
aspect that during the pendency of the appeal despite of rejection of respondent
No. 1's suit, has fraudulently and with malafide intention has executed a
registered sale deed in favour of Shri Anuraj Bhandari and Shri Ayub Khan. It is
also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that learned after execution of
sale deed dated 14.07.2023, the appeal itself has become infructuous and deserves
to be dismissed on the ground of maintainability.
7 - It is further submitted that learned First Appellate Court has
committed an error of law by not taking into account the subsequent event and
error of jurisdiction. On the aforesaid grounds, it is prayed that the impugned
order deserves to be set aside and application filed by the petitioner/respondent
No. 1 be allowed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1648
3 CR-1273-2025
8- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents
available on record. Considering the totality of circumstances and with a view to
obviate unnecessary delay, this revision is being disposed of at the admission
stage itself without issuance of notice to the respondent(s).
9- Order VII Rule 11 of CPC reads as under :-
11. Rejection of plaint - The plaint shall be rejected in the
following cases:-
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the
plaintiff, on being required by the court to correct the
valuation within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do
so;
(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the
plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the
plaintiff, on being required by the court to supply the
requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the
Court, fails to do so;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint
to be barred by any law;
(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;
(f) where the plaintiff fails comply with the provision of
Rule 9.
[Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction
of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper
shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be
recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any
cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation
or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be,
within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend
such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.]
10- n perusal of the aforesaid provisions as well as documents available
on record, it is apparent that while filing the application under Order VII Rule 11
read with Section 151 of CPC before the Appellate Court, the
petitioner/defendant remained failed to show the grounds/provisions enshrined
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1648
4 CR-1273-2025
under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and such grounds/objections/issues could be
raised by the petitioner/defendant by filing of written final arguments.
11- An application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC must be decided by
looking only at the statements in the plaint, ignoring the defendant's written
statements, evidence or sale/transfer of suit property during the trial or appeal.
Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is a narrow provision for striking out fundamentally
flawed plaints before trial, but it is not a tool to be used at the appellate stage to
ignore important disputed facts or complex legal questions. Accordingly, the
present case should also be decided on its merits in the appeal.
12- In the upshot of the aforesaid deliberations in entirety, the findings of
learned Appellate Court do not warrant any interference and therefore, the
impugned order dated 13.11.2025 passed by learned Additional District Judge,
Tarana, District Ujjain in RCA No. 04/2022 is hereby affirmed. Consequently,
present petition stands dismissed.
Pending application, if any, stands closed.
(ALOK AWASTHI)
JUDGE
Vindesh
