Rajasthan Housing Board vs Ram Sahay Son Of Late Shri Narain ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 1048 Raj/2

Rajasthan High Court

Rajasthan Housing Board vs Ram Sahay Son Of Late Shri Narain ... on 12 February, 2024

Author: Mahendar Kumar Goyal

Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal

[2024:RJ-JP:7219]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                    S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7239/2020

Rajasthan Housing Board, Through Its Commissioner, Raj.
Housing Board, Jyoti Nagar, Awasan Bhawan, Jaipur.
                                                                        ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
1.       Ram Sahay Son Of Late Shri Narain, Resident Of Pratap
         Nagar, Ward No. 33, Tonk Road (Shyopur) Sanganer,
         Jaipur.
2.       Badri Son Of Late Shri Narain, Resident Of Pratap Nagar,
         Ward No. 33, Tonk Road (Shyopur), Sanganer, Jaipur.
3.       Ramu Son Of Shri Narain, Resident Of Pratap Nagar, Ward
         No. 33, Tonk Road (Shyopur), Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur.
4.       Sita Ram Son Of Late Shri Ladu Ram, Resident Of Pratap
         Nagar,      Ward    No.     33,     Tonk      Road         (Shyopur),   Tehsil
         Sanganer, Jaipur.
                                                                     ----Respondents

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

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Judgment / Order

12/02/2024

This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India is directed against the order dated 23.07.2018 passed by

the learned Additional Civil Judge No.33, Jaipur Metropolitan,

Jaipur in Suit No.89/2010 whereby, an application filed by the

petitioner/defendant under Order 7 Rule 11(D) CPC, has been

dismissed.

By way of the aforesaid application filed under Order 7 Rule

11(D) CPC, the petitioner has raised an objection as to the

maintainability of the suit alleging that the subject land stands

[2024:RJ-JP:7219] (2 of 2) [CW-7239/2020]

acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

However, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admits that

the factum of acquisition is not revealed from the contents of the

plaint; but, if his defense establishes the factum of acquisition.

It is trite law that while considering the application under

Order 7 Rule 11(D) CPC, the averments contained in the plaint can

only be examined and not the defense of the defendant/applicant.

Since, the learned counsel for the petitioner himself admits that

the factum of acquisition of the subject land is not revealed from

the contents of the plaint, in the considered opinion of this Court,

the learned trial Court did not err in rejecting the application filed

by it.

In view thereof, this civil writ petition is dismissed.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

Manish/83

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)