Awtar Singh vs Jay Kumar Singh And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 4579 Patna

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   CIVIL REVISION No.125 of 2016
======================================================

Awtar Singh, S/o Sri S.B.N. Singh, Owner of "WOODLAND", Ground Floor, Harihar Chamber, Boring Road, Patna-1

Defendant/ Petitioner Versus

1. Jay Kumar Singh, Director, CECON Engineers India Pvt. Ltd., kaving its registered office at Bank Colony, St. Karen's School, Gola Road, Patna- 810503.

2. Smt. Neena Das, Director, Ashary Engicon Pvt. Ltd., Having its registered office Tube well No. 2, Sheikhpura, Patna-810503.

Plaintiffs/Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s   :      Mr. Ajay Behari Sinha
For the Respondent/s   :      Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA CAV JUDGMENT Date : 18-08-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. This Civil Revision has been preferred against the order

dated 19.03.2016 passed by learned Subordinate Judge-XI, Patna in

Eviction Suit No. 68 of 2008 whereby a petition dated 02.04.2011

under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure

praying for rejection of suit as not maintainable was rejected.

3. The plaintiffs have filed Eviction Suit No. 68 of 2008

before Sub-Judge-1, Patna on the grounds of non-payment of rent

and personal necessity. The defendant/petitioner on service of

summons appeared and filed written statement and denied the claim

of plaintiffs on various grounds specially that there is no relationship

of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and the defendant. In the

proceeding defendant/petitioner filed a petition dated 02.04.2011 for Patna High Court C.R. No.125 of 2016 dt.18-08-2022

rejection of suit under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the CPC. The

learned trial court vide the impugned order dated 19.03.2016,

rejected the petition dated 02.04.2011 observing that the relationship

of landlord and tenant and cause of action are mixed question of facts

and law and at this stage not found any merit in the said petition.

Hence, this Civil Revision..

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

learned trial court failed to appreciate that the defendant has been

neither inducted by the plaintiffs as tenant nor the plaintiffs are

landlord. It is further submitted that plaintiffs have failed to produce

a chit of paper to establish at least prima facie the relationship of

landlord and tenant and accordingly plaintiffs have no cause of action

to file the present suit and the suit deserves to be rejected under

Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Accordingly, he prayed to set aside the

impugned order.

5. Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC provide that the

suit shall be rejected (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action,

and (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be

barred by any law. For deciding an application under Order VII Rule

11, the court can only see the pleadings in the plaint and not anything

else including written statement. The Court cannot for the

determination of the application, look into the defence set up by the

defendants.

Patna High Court C.R. No.125 of 2016 dt.18-08-2022

6. The Civil Procedure Code, 1908 provides for the

remedy of rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11, on certain

specifically stated grounds. Rejection of plaint weeds about

frivolous, vexatious and improper plaint at the very outset, thus,

saving judicial time and resources. The entire purpose of conferment

of such powers under Order VII Rule 11 is to ensure that a litigation,

which is meaningless and bound to prove abortive is not permitted to

occupy the time of courts. Such a remedy is necessary to put an end

to the sham litigation, so the further judicial time is not wasted.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

considering the material available on record, this court does not find

any infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. At this stage

it cannot be said that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action or it

is barred by any law. The reasoning given by the learned trial court

cannot be said to be suffering from any patent illegality or irregularity

requiring any inference by this court in its Revisional jurisdiction.

8. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed as being

devoid of merits.

(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J) khushbu/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                04/07/2022
Uploading Date          22.08.2022
Transmission Date