Laxmikant S/O Shri Vinod Kumar ... vs Shashikant Sharma S/O Late ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4276 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

             S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.50/2022

Laxmikant S/o Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Aged About 36 Years,
R/o Near Sain Mandir, Ratangarh District Churu Rajasthan.
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                  Versus
1.    Shashikant Sharma S/o Late Sanwarmal Sharma, Aged
      About 30 Years, R/o Ward No. 29, Kasba Laxmangarh
      District Sikar Rajasthan Mobile No. 9772985591.
2.    Smt. Rama Devi Sureka W/o Suresh Kumar Sureka D/o
      Suraj Kumar Sanganeria, R/o A.f-108, Ravindra Pali
      Keshtopur,     Kolkata-51           West        Bangal          Mobile    No,
      9831246375.
3.    Smt. Uma Goenka W/o Pramod Kumar Goenka D/o Suraj
      Kumar Sanganeria, R/o 218, Block-A, Bangur Avenue,
      Kolkata-55 West Bengal Mobile No. 9007120779.
4.    Smt. Sudha Naglia W/o Ashok Naglia D/o Late Suraj
      Kumar Sanganeria, R/o 183, Bangur Avenue, Block-A
      Kolkata-55 West Bengal Mobile No. 9433855891.
5.    Smt Purnima Bajaj W/o Peush Bajaj D/o Late Suraj
      Kumar Sanganeria, R/o 48/8 Jesore Road, Bangur Avenue
      Kolkata-55 West Bangal, Mobile No. 9163188971.
6.    Smt. Madhu Devi D/o Late Suraj Mal Sanganeria, R/o 52,
      Jakaria Street, Kolkata West Bengal.
7.    Satyanarayan       Sanganeria         S/o      Late      Kanhaiyalal,     R/o
      Agarwal Kanol Street, 333 Kolikata 7000481.
8.    Manoj Sanganeria S/o Shri Mohanlal Sanganeria, R/o
      135, Jesaar Road, Heritage Building, Block-A Flat No. 2S,
      Kolkata -55 West Bangal Mobile No. 9830196230.
9.    Santosh      Kumar       Sanganeria           S/o        Late    Kanhaiyalal
      Sanganeria, R/o 52, Jakaria Street, Kolkata West Bangal
      Mobile No. 9674616467.
10.   Prahlad Poddar S/o Kalicharan Poddar, R/o 34, Rajnarayan
      Rai Choudhary Ghat Road Hawrah West Bangal.
11.   Manish Kumar Soni S/o Shri Jagdish Soni, R/o Ward No.
      25, Near Raghunath Hospital, Kasba Laxmangarh District
      Sikar Rajasthan.



                   (Downloaded on 01/07/2022 at 09:06:14 PM)
                                                 (2 of 3)                  [CR-50/2022]


12.      Rajkumar S/o Bhagwanaram, R/o Village Gharsu, Tehsil
         Laxmangarh District Sikar.
13.      Sub Registrar Laxmangarh, District Sikar.
14.      Nagar Palika Mandal, Laxmangarh Through Executive
         Officer.
                                                                   ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. P L Sharma
For Respondent(s)           :



             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

                                   Judgment

28/06/2022

1. Petitioner-defendant No.10 has filed this revision petition

assailing the order dated 14.12.2021 passed in Civil Suit

No.01/2021 by the Court of Additional District Judge, Laxmangarh

whereby and whereunder his application under Order 7 Rule 11

CPC has been dismissed.

2. It appears from the record that respondents-plaintiffs have

filed civil suit for declaring the sale deed of petitioner-defendant

dated 06.10.2016 as null and void to the extent of 1/6th share

and has paid court fees on the sale amount accordingly.

3. The defendant No.10 moved an application under Order 7

Rule 11 CPC raising an objection that plaintiff is not in possession

of the suit property and has no cause of action as well as has not

paid the ad valorem court fees on the whole sale amount hence

the suit is liable to be rejected within the scope of Order 7 Rule 11

CPC.

4. The plaintiff filed reply to the application and oppose the

same.

(3 of 3) [CR-50/2022]

5. The trial court vide impugned order has observed that the

plaintiff has challenged the sale deed to the extent of 1/6th share

and has paid the ad valorem court fees accordingly. Further the

trial court has observed that the other objections regarding

possession cannot be adjudicated within the scope of Order 7 Rule

11 CPC as such objection requires evidence and can be

considered/decided after holding the trial.

6. Heard counsel for petitioner.

7. It is trite law that for the purpose of deciding the application

under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the averment of the plaint are

germane and after a careful and meaningful reading of the plaint

as a whole, it appears that plaint discloses a cause of action and

does not suffer from any defect as enshrined under Order 7 Rule

11 CPC.

8. In the present case, none of grounds as enunciated under

Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is made out. This Court does not find any

jurisdictional error or material illegality in the impugned order to

call for any interference under Section 115 of CPC. The revision

petition is devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed.

9. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

SAURABH/14

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)