Patna High Court
Nishant Raj vs Sneh Lata Rajgarhia on 10 February, 2025
Author: Arun Kumar Jha
Bench: Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.163 of 2025
======================================================
1. Nishant Raj Son of Govind Prasad Rajgarhia, Resident of Mohalla Lal
Bazar, Ward No. 33, under Bettiah Nagar Parishad, P.O. and P.S. Bettiah
Town, Dist. West Champaran. Presently resident of Mohalla Prestige
Ackopolis, Hosur Road, P.O. Viveknagar, P.S. Adugoli, Bangalore,
Karnataka.
2. Govind Prasad Rajgarhia @ Govind Rajgarhia, Son of Late Surajmal
Rajgarhia, Resident of Mohalla Lal Bazar, Ward No. 33, under Bettiah
Nagar Parishad, P.O. and P.S. Bettiah Town, Dist. West Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Sneh Lata Rajgarhia, Widow of Late Ajay Kumar Rajgarhia, Resident of
Mohalla Lal Bazar, Ward No. 33, under Bettiah Nagar Parishad, P.O. and
P.S. Bettiah Town, Dist. West Champaran Presently resident of B. 125,
Central Park, G.I.D.C. Pandesara, P.O. Pandesara, P.S. Pandesara, District
Surat, Gujarat.
2. Smt. Sharda Devi, W/o Kedar Prasad, R/o- Mohalla- Shanti Nagar, Bettiah,
P.O. Bettiah, P.S. Bettiah Town, District- West Champaran.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vijay Shanker Tiwari, Adv.
Ms. Abhilasha Jha, Adv.
Mr. Durgesh Shukla, Adv.
For the Respondent no. 1 : Mr.Parth Gaurav, Adv.
Mr. Manogya Singh, Adv.
Mr. G.R. Sahni, Adv.
Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 10-02-2025
Record taken up on mentioning made on behalf of the
petitioner.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
learned counsel for the respondent no. 1.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners limits his prayer only to the relief mentioned in
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.163 of 2025 dt.10-02-2025
2/7
paragraph no. 1(II) and only seeks directions to the learned Sub
Judge V, Bettiah to dispose of his application dated 31.03.2023
filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( in
short "the Code") by the petitioner who is defendant before
learned trial Court. Learned counsel submits that after filing of
application on 31.03.2023, despite opportunity, plaintiff did not
file rejoinder and vide order dated 06.09.2023, learned trial
court debarred the plaintiff/respondent from filing the rejoinder.
Thereafter the matter has been coming up for hearing on the
petition dated 31.03.2023 by Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code.
Learned counsel further submits that prior to filing of the
application under Order 7 Rule 11, the plaintiff has filed a
petition under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code on 30.11.2022 and a
rejoinder to which was filed on 20.12.2022 by the defendants.
Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a number of petitions under Order
6 Rule 17 of the Code and also under Order 1 Rule 10 of the
Code. But the learned trial court has not taken steps for disposal
of the petition filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code before
any other application considering its nature.
4. Learned counsel referred to a decision of the
Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Rajpal Singh Vs.
Sunderlal, W.P. 14349 of 2014, wherein the learned Single
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.163 of 2025 dt.10-02-2025
3/7
Judge held that an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the
Code goes to the root of the matter and if the objections filed
under this provision are sustained, the plaintiffs could be non-
suited and on this ground, the learned Singh Judge held that
even prior to hearing any injunction application, the petition
filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code should be heard and
disposed of. The learned counsel further refers to the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saleem Bhai and
Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in 2003 1
SCC 557 wherein the Hon'ble apex Court has observed that the
trial court can exercise the power under Order 7 Rule 11 of the
Code at any stage of the suit - before registering the plaint or
after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before the
conclusion of the trial and further held that a direction to file the
written statement without deciding the application under Order
7 Rule 11 of the Code cannot but be procedural irregularity
touching the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court. Learned
counsel also refers to a decision of this Court in the case of
Prashant Rajgarhia and Anr. Vs. Nishant Raj and Ors. passed
in Civil Misc. Jurisdiction Case No. 157 of 2025 wherein the
scope of Article 227 with regard to issuing directions to the trial
court about disposal of pending applications have been
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.163 of 2025 dt.10-02-2025
4/7
discussed. Learned counsel further submits that the
plaintiff/respondent wants to delay the matter and is not
allowing the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code
to be disposed of.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent no. 1 submits that the Court should not
issue directions for disposal of the application pending under
Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code filed by the petitioner for the
reason that the said application has never been pressed by the
petitioner. Learned counsel further refers to the decision of the
Hon'ble Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh and Ors. reported in (2024) 6 SCC 267 wherein
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph nos. 40, 41, 42 and 43
has discussed the situation under which the trial courts are
directed to dispose of certain cases in time bound manner and
issued certain guidelines and held that Constitution Courts
should not normally fix a time-bound schedule for disposal of
cases pending in any court and further held that orders fixing the
outer limit for the disposal of cases should be passed only in
exceptional circumstances to meet extraordinary situations. The
learned counsel stressed on paragraph no. 43 of the decision
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.163 of 2025 dt.10-02-2025
5/7
which reads as under:
"There is another important reason for
adopting the said approach. Not every litigant
can easily afford to file proceedings in the
constitutional Courts. Those litigants who can
afford to approach the constitutional Courts
cannot be allowed to take undue advantage by
getting an order directing out-of-turn disposal
of their cases while all other litigants
patiently wait in the queue for their turn to
come. The Courts, superior in the judicial
hierarchy, cannot interfere with the day-to-
day functioning of the other Courts by
directing that only certain cases should be
decided out of turn within a time frame. In a
sense, no Court of law is inferior to the other.
This Court is not superior to the High Courts
in the judicial hierarchy. Therefore, the
Judges of the High Courts should be allowed
to set their priorities on a rational basis.
Thus, as far as setting the outer limit is
concerned, it should be best left to the
concerned Courts unless there are very
extraordinary circumstances."
Learned counsel further submits that since every
litigant cannot approach this Court, the ones who can approach
this Court should not be given any priority and should not be
allowed any undue advantage by giving directions for disposal
of their cases in time bound manner.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, by
way of reply, submits that there was no need to press the
application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code as the order
sheet would show the matter has been coming up for hearing
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.163 of 2025 dt.10-02-2025
6/7
and though the plaintiff respondent has been debarred from
filing rejoinder no orders could be passed.
7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
rival submission of the parties.
8. Perusal of record shows the matter before the
learned trial court on a petition filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of
the Code has been continuing at the stage of hearing since
06.11.2023
. Further from the order sheets it transpires that the
said petition was fixed for hearing on 07.03.2024, 15.03.2024,
16.03.2024, 17.05.2024, 13.06.2024, 05.07.2024, 31.07.2024
and 09.09.2024, it could not be said that the learned trial court
has been diligent in proceeding with the matter before it. For
disposal of a single application, the matter had been adjourned
so many times and it is really unfortunate and proceeding in this
manner by the learned trial court compels this Court to interfere
in the matter as the learned trial court is not properly
discharging its responsibility and the jurisdiction vested in it.
Therefore, the learned trial court is directed to take up the
petition filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code by the
defendant/petitioner along with the petition dated 05.02.2024
filed by the plaintiff for disposal at the earliest and preferably
within a month from the date of receipt/production of copy of
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.163 of 2025 dt.10-02-2025
this order before any other petition considering the nature of the
petition filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code. A petition filed
under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code goes into the root of the
matter and if allowed would result into end of the matter.
9. The parties are directed to cooperate and not seek
unnecessary adjournments and allow the matter to proceed to its
logical conclusion.
10. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition
is disposed of.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Anuradha/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 14.02.2025
Transmission Date N/A
