Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Gobar Ram vs Ram Pratap on 7 December, 2021
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 18/2021
1. Gobar Ram S/o Sukha Ram, Aged About 60 Years, Village
Singad, Tehsil And Dis. Nagaur
2. Khinya Ram S/o Ranjeeta Ram, Aged About 62 Years,
Village Singad, Tehsil And Dis. Nagaur
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Ram Pratap S/o Makkhan Lal Agarwal, 73, Dadhich Nagar,
Mahamandir, Jodhpur
2. Chhotu Singh F S/o Prem Singh Udawat, Rajwara Palace,
Police Line, Ratanada, Jodhpur
3. Jogdish Chandra S/o Jai Ram, Kamla Nehru Jodhpur Hall,
R/o Opposite Achal Ashram, Ramanuj Kot, Fateh Sagar,
Inside Nagauri Gate, Jodhpur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.R. Patel
For Respondent(s) : Mr Prashant Tatia
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
07/12/2021
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-
defendants No. 1 & 2 against the order dated 21.01.2021 passed
by the learned Additional District Judge No.7, Jodhpur in Civil Suit
No.86/2020, whereby their application filed under Order 7 Rule 11
CPC has been rejected.
Respondent No.1-plaintiff has appeared as caveator.
Heard learned counsel for both the parties.
In the present case, the respondent No.1-plaintiff has filed
civil suit for specific performance of contract and permanent
(2 of 4) [CR-18/2021]
injunction placing reliance upon one document dated 06.06.2012.
It has been averred in the plaint that through this document dated
06.06.2012, the land in question of khasra No.47 measuring 83
bigha 17 biswa at village Indroka, Tehsil & District Jodhpur was
agreed to be sold to the plaintiff by the defendants No.3 & 4, for
and on behalf of defendants No.1 & 2 and total amount of
Rs.1,59,65,000/-, in installments has been received. It has been
averred that the defendants No.1 & 2 are also bound by the
document dated 06.06.2012 and therefore it has been prayed that
suit may be decreed in favour of the plaintiff against the
defendants. The plaintiff has also made an alternative prayer in
the plaint to refund the advance amount of Rs.1,59,65,000/-, in
case his suit for specific performance is not decreed.
After service of notices upon the defendants, the defendants
No.1 & 2 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to reject
the plaint.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the respondent
No.1-plaintiff filed civil suit for specific performance of contract
and permanent injunction, placing reliance on a document dated
06.06.2012 which is not an agreement but is merely a receipt.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the land in
question of khasra No.47 measuring 83 bigha 17 biswa, infact
recorded in the khatedari of petitioners-defendants No.1 & 2 but
the defendants No.3 & 4 (respondents No.2 & 3 herein), without
having any authority on their behalf, executed the document
dated 06.06.2012 and even if any amount has been received by
the defendants No.3 & 4, the petitioners are not bound by the said
document dated 06.06.2012. The counsel for petitioners submits
that defendants No.3 & 4 are neither their power of attorney
(3 of 4) [CR-18/2021]
holders nor otherwise authorized to enter into agreement to sale
and to receive any sale amount for and on behalf of the
petitioners.
Learned counsel for petitioners further submits that the
document dated 06.06.2012 is firstly not an agreement and
secondly same is hit by the provision of Section 42 (b) of the
Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, accordingly this document is a void
document and no cause of action has arisen to the plaintiff to file
the present suit on the basis of this void document. It has also
been submitted that the suit itself is against the public policy and
has been filed beyond limitation, therefore, liable to be rejected at
threshold. The counsel for petitioner submits that once the
document dated 06.06.2012 itself is void, suit instituted based
thereupon should be rejected as being barred by law.
In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the
appellants has relied on the following judgments: (1) AIR 1977 SC
2421, (2) 2008 (5) WLC 505, (3) 2010 (3) RLW 2636 and (4)
2021 (1) WLC (Raj) (UC) 297.
Learned counsel for respondent-plaintiff submitted reply to
the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and submitted
that the objections raised by the petitioner-defendants No.1 & 2 in
the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, do not fall within
purview of Order 7 Rule 11 and as such the trial court has rightly
dismissed the application. The impugned order is well within the
jurisdiction and parameters of law and does not call for any
interference by this Court.
At the stage of deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11
CPC, the Court is required to consider the averments made in the
plaint as also may look into the documents referred in the plaint.
(4 of 4) [CR-18/2021]
By perusal of the plaint, it is apparent that the plaintiff has alleged
the cause of action accrued on the basis of document dated
06.06.2012, firstly for specific performance and in alternative for
recovery of the amount paid thereunder. As far as objection
regarding validity/legality/enforceability of the document dated
06.06.2012 is concerned, same may not be examined at this
stage. All the objections, raised by the petitioner-defendants No.1
& 2 are subject matter to be tried during the course of trial and
cannot be examined at the stage of deciding application under
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
None of the judgment cited by learned counsel for petitioner,
support the contention made by the petitioner that on such
objections, the suit can be rejected within scope of Order 7 Rule
11 CPC. Hence, this Court does not find any jurisdictional error in
dismissing the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC by the
learned trial Court.
Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
28-AnilKC/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
