Varsha D/O Nihal Chand vs Hitesh Vashistha S/O Late Shri ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6843 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

            S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 164/2022
1.     Varsha D/o Nihal Chand, R/o Near Alwar Gate, Malakheda
       Tehsil Malakheda District Alwar.
2.     Nihalchand S/o Gyarsiram, Aged About 63 Years, R/o
       Near Alwar Gate, Malakheda Tehsil Malakheda District
       Alwar.
                                                    ----Petitioners/Defendants
                                     Versus
Hitesh Vashistha S/o Late Shri Pooran Chand Vashistha, R/o
Near Govindavji Mandir, Rajgarh District Alwar, Rajasthan.
                                                        ----Respondent/Plaintiff

For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Mohit Gupta
For Respondent(s)          :


              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
                                  Judgment
20/10/2022

1.   Petitioners-defendants           (hereinafter          "defendants)"            have

preferred   instant   revision       petition      under          Section   115      CPC,

challenging    the    Order        dated        27.05.2022            in    Civil    Suit

No.34/14/2021 (in Misc. Application No.38/14/2021) passed by

the Additional District Judge Rajgarh, District Alwar, whereby and

whereunder application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by

defendants has been dismissed.

2. Heard learned counsel for defendants and on perusal of

impugned order and plaint, it appears that respondent-plaintiff

instituted a civil suit claiming damages on account of defamation,

due to allegations levelled by defendants.

3. Counsel submits that the cause of action to institute the suit

is baseless and the same has been instituted only to harass

defendants. He placed reliance on judgments of T.

Arivandandam Vs. T. V. Satyapal [(1997) 4 SCC 467] &

(2 of 3) [CR-164/2022]

Vinod Kumar Agarwal Vs. Jagdish Prasad [(1997) 3 WLC

388].

4. In the present case, respondent-plaintiff instituted civil suit

claiming damages alleging inter alia that defendants lodged a false

and baseless F.I.R No.271/2014 under Sections 498-A, 406, 323

and 377 of IPC. In the F.I.R, apart from allegations of demand of

dowry & harassment, other allegations was also levelled that he

was already married and was having children. Such allegations

were found false during course of investigation and due to such

allegations, plaintiff as well as his father immensely lose their

reputation as well as mental balance. Even because of such false

allegations, his father came in the grip of immense mental tension

& lastly died on 17.01.2016.

5. At the stage of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, it is trite law that

averments of plaint are germane for consideration and on perusal

of whole plaint, it may not be said that plaint does not disclose

cause of action/right to sue. Whether the cause of action or

averments of plaint are correct or not, is a subject matter of

evidence and is not required to be adjudicated at initial stage.

6. In case of T. Arivandandam (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme

Court propounded a principle of law that a vexatious and mertiless

case, in absence of any cause to sue may be rejected under Order

7 Rule 11 CPC. There is no disagreement to that proposition of

law, but facts of the present case are entirely different. On perusal

of plaint, it may not be assumed at initial stage that the suit is

vexatious or mertiless or without cause of action. Even in the

judgment in T. Arivandandam (supra), it has been expounded by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a meaningful reading of the plaint

(3 of 3) [CR-164/2022]

as a whole is required, not a formal reading. Thus, the said

judgment does not render any help to petitioners.

7. In case of Vinod Kumar Agarwal (supra), the dispute was not

between the husband and wife, therefore, on facts the said

judgment does not apply to the present case.

8. Learned trial court, while dismissing application, has already

observed in the impugned order dated 27.05.2022 that averments

of plaint are required to be examined after recording evidence of

parties and defendants are free to raise their objections during

course of trial. This Court does not find any illegality or

jurisdictional error in the impugned Order dated 27.05.2022,

which calls for any interference by this Court, while exercising its

jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC.

9. As a result, the revision petition is devoid of merits and the

same is hereby dismissed.

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

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

SACHIN/6

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)