Anil Kumar Saini vs Mohanlal (2023:Rj-Jd:26213)
2023 Latest Caselaw 6074 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:26213]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 120/2023 Anil Kumar Saini S/o Omprakash Saini, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Purane Sadho Ke Thikane Ke Samne, Wars No.10, Sardarshahar, District Churu State Rajasthan (India)

----Petitioner Versus Mohanlal S/o Late Rachumal, R/o Mochiyon Ke Kua Ke Pass, Wards No.3, Sardarshahar, District Churu State Rajasthan. (India)

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Chotia

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Order 18/08/2023

1. The present revision petition has been preferred against the

order dated 11.07.2023 passed by Rent Tribunal, Sardarshahar,

District Churu whereby the application under Order VII Rule 11 of

the Code of Civil Procedure as preferred by the defendant has

been rejected.

2. The ground raised by the defendant in the application under

Order VII Rule 11, CPC was firstly, that a suit for eviction was

earlier preferred by the plaintiff wherein an application under

Order VII Rule 11, CPC was preferred by the defendant and the

same was allowed, as a consequence of which, the suit of the

plaintiff was dismissed. The suit having once been dismissed, the

present suit for the same reliefs would not be maintainable and

would be barred by law. Secondly, the fact of the earlier suit

having been dismissed, has been concealed in the present suit and

therefore, the plaint deserves to be rejected on the said ground

also. Thirdly, all the necessary parties have not been impleaded

in the present suit and fourthly, that the present petition has

[2023:RJ-JD:26213] (2 of 3) [CR-120/2023]

been filed on the basis of a Will dated 21.08.2015 which was not

averred in the earlier suit and hence, the plaint deserves to be

rejected. The learned Court below rejected all the objections as

raised by the defendant and dismissed the application under Order

VII Rule 11, CPC aggrieved of which the present revision petition

has been filed.

3. A perusal of the record shows that in the earlier suit the

application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC was allowed only on the

ground of jurisdiction. Vide the order dated 30.03.2017 passed in

the earlier suit, it was held by the Court that the subject matter

was based on the relationship of a landlord and tenant and

therefore, in view of the fact that the Rajasthan Rent Control Act,

2001 had been enacted in the Municipal area of Sardarshahar

w.e.f. 11.07.2014, the jurisdiction to hear the matter involving the

dispute of a landlord and tenant would only be with the Rent

Tribunal and not to a Civil Court. Meaning thereby, the earlier suit

was rejected only on the ground of jurisdiction holding that the

dispute as raised before the Court could be raised only before a

Rent Tribunal.

4. It is only in pursuance to the said order that the present

eviction petition has been filed before the Rent Tribunal.

Therefore, the ground as raised by the petitioner of the earlier suit

having been dismissed and the present suit being not

maintainable because of the said reason, cannot be held to be

tenable. It is clear that the earlier suit was not even entertained

by the Civil Court what to say of any adjudication or final decision.

5. So far as the ground of the Will dated 21.08.2015 or the

non-joinder of all the parties is concerned, the same firstly,

[2023:RJ-JD:26213] (3 of 3) [CR-120/2023]

cannot be the grounds to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule

11, CPC and secondly, the same are the issues to be decided by

the Court after evidence being led by the parties.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his

submissions relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of T. Arivandandam vs. T.V.

Satyapal & Anr., (1977) 4 SCC 467 and the judgments of

Rajasthan High Court in Temple of Thakur Shri Mathuradassji,

Chhota Bhandar vs. Shri Kanhaiyalal & Ors., (2008) 2 RLW

1390 and S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.38/2010 (Annant

Pal Singh vs. Sumer Singh & Anr.) decided on 22.12.2016.

7. In the specific opinion of this Court, none of the ratio as laid

down in the above mentioned judgments would apply to the

present matter as all those matters pertained to vexatious and

meritless suits. In those matters, the Court specifically reached to

the conclusion that the suit was an abuse of the process of Court

and hence, were dismissed as a consequence of the rejection of

the plaint under Order VII Rule 11, CPC.

8. As observed above, the present suit for eviction filed before

the Rent Tribunal being totally in terms as provided under the law

and the order impugned as passed by the Court below being also

in consonance with law does not deserve any interference. The

revision petition is therefore, dismissed.

9. The stay petition also stands dismissed.

(REKHA BORANA),J 7-Sachin/Kashish/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)