Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Acharya Ji Raghunath Ji Sampati Trust vs Shankarlal Joshi on 31 May, 2024
Author: Birendra Kumar
Bench: Birendra Kumar
[2024:RJ-JD:23659]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 49/2023
Acharya Ji Raghunath Ji Sampati Trust, Bikaner Office At
Kalkatiya Bhawan Acharyoka Chowk, Bkaner Through Its
Trustees Brahmdatt Acharya S/o Shri Gopal Acharya (President),
Aged About 78 Yrs., R/o Bada Bazar, Surano Ka Mohalla, Bikaner.
(Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Shankarlal Joshi S/o Late Shri Kishan Gopal Joshi, By
Caste Brahmn, R/o Near Raghunathsarkuan, Maliyo Ka
Mohalla, Opposite Bheruji Temple, Bikaner. (Raj.)
2. Satyaprakash Acharya, (Vice President) R/o Near
Soorsagar, Dhobi Dhora, Bikaner.
3. Mahesh Kumar Acharya S/o Shri Kajlidas Acharya, (Joint
Secretary), R/o Bada Bazar, Surano Ka Mohalla, Acharyo
Ka Chowk, Bikaner.
4. Naresh Kumar Acharya, (Joint Secretary) R/obada Bazar,
Suranoka Mohalla, Acharyo Ka Chowk, Bikaner.
5. Vidhyasagar, (Secretary), R/o Bada Bazar, Surano Ka
Mohalla, Acharyo Ka Chowk, Bikaner.
6. Kishangopal Acharya, (Office Minister), R/o Bada Bazar,
Surano Ka Mohalla, Acharyo Ka Chowk, Bikaner.
7. Bhawani Shankar Acharya A@ Achhamaharaj, (Trustee),
R/o Bada Bazar, Surano Ka Mohalla, Acharyo Ka Chowk,
Bikaner.
8. Chetan Das Acharya, (Trustee), R/o Bada Bazar, Surano
Ka Mohalla, Acharyo Ka Chowk, Bikaner.
9. Dindayal Acharya, (Trustee), R/o Bada Bazar, Surano Ka
Mohalla, Acharyo Ka Chowk, Bikaner.
10. Ghanshyamdas Acharya, (Trustee), R/o Bada Bazar,
Surano Ka Mohalla, Acharyo Ka Chowk, Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surendra Thanvi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Purohit
(Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:42:16 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:23659] (2 of 5) [CR-49/2023]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
Judgment
Judgment Reserved on : 07.05.2024
Judgment Pronounced on : 31.05.2024
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16.02.2023
passed in Civil Suit No.261/2022, whereby the learned trial Judge
refused prayer of the petitioner to reject the plaint under Order 7
Rule 11 CPC.
2. The petitioner has relied on Clause (a) & (d) of Rule 11 of
Order 7. Clause (a) applies where the plaint does not disclose a
cause of action and Clause (d) applies where the suit appears
from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a fictitious
and imaginary suit was filed without any real cause of action,
which would be evident from a bare perusal of the plaint. The suit
was barred by limitation but the learned trial Judge has not
appreciated the law and has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested
in it.
4. The plaintiff-respondent Shankarlal Joshi brought the suit for
specific performance of contract against the petitioner and other
respondents asserting therein that the petitioner Raghunath
Sampati Trust had agreed to sell Plot Nos.9 & 10, which was
acquired by the petitioner through a 'patta'. In token of
agreement, part-consideration money was paid by the plaintiff and
a receipt was issued by the petitioner on 12.5.1982. The suit was
filed in the year 2022. The plaintiff asserted in the plaint that a
Civil Suit bearing No.516 of 2003 (Kishanlal Vs. Brij Vallabh) for
permanent injunction against the petitioner-Trust was pending
[2024:RJ-JD:23659] (3 of 5) [CR-49/2023]
wherein the plaintiff was also a party. The plaintiff requested the
defendant-petitioner to execute sale-deed but the defendant did
not execute, rather when the plaintiff was making new
construction of a mud-wall which had already fallen, the petitioner
obstructed in the month of April-May, 2021, hence, the plaintiff
got cause of action for the suit.
5. The defendant-petitioner in his written statement specifically
denied that there was any agreement to sale with the petitioner.
The plaintiff was never allowed possession of the suit property,
rather in the month of April-May, 2021 the plaintiff attempted to
forcefully take possession of the Trust property, hence, an FIR was
lodged against the plaintiff. A malafide and frivolous suit has been
filed just to harass the petitioner-defendant.
6. The plaintiff relied on receipt dated 12.5.1982, English
translation whereof is being reproduced below :-
"Received Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only)
from Shri Shankar Lal Ji Joshi in respect of the Trust
property near the well.
Sd/-
Narsingh Das Acharya
Receiver ".
7. Evidently the aforesaid receipt does not mention reference of
area of any plot and the purpose for which receipt was granted
whether it was a lease for one year to cultivate or otherwise a
licence for temporary use. However, one thing is clear that the
aforesaid one sentence recital does not constitute a valid
agreement to sell, as it lacks description of the property,
consideration money etc.
[2024:RJ-JD:23659] (4 of 5) [CR-49/2023]
8. A perusal of the plaint makes it abundantly clear that it
contains imaginary statement without any base. Another suit
bearing No.516 of 2003 referred above was filed by Kishan Lal
against the Trust claiming permanent injunction against the Trust
property. It is not acceptable that the plaintiff would await for
result of the aforesaid suit wherein quite different property was
involved, therefore, the suit is barred by limitation as provided
under Section 54 of the Indian Limitation Act. The limitation
under the Act is of three years and starts running from the date
fixed for the purpose, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff
has notice that performance is refused.
9. As discussed above, there is no agreement to sell between
the parties, hence there is no question of valid cause of action
within time.
10. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has relied on the
affidavit sworn by a Trustee wherein he has stated that possession
of the said plot has been given to the plaintiff. The aforesaid
subsequent affidavit would not make any difference.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment
of Hon'ble Apex Court in Raghuwendra Saharan Singh Vs.
Ram Prasanna Singh reported in (2020) 16 SCC 601 for his
submission that if the suit is barred by limitation it comes under
Clause (d) as suit barred under any law.
12. This Court finds substance in the submission aforesaid. The
suit was barred by limitation, hence, the plaint was fit to be
rejected on this ground alone. Moreover, on realistic and
meaningful reading of the entire plaint, it is evident that there is
no real cause of action in favour of the plaintiff as there was no
[2024:RJ-JD:23659] (5 of 5) [CR-49/2023]
agreement between the parties to sell any property, hence, the
suit for specific performance of contract was not maintainable,
therefore, the plaint is fit to be rejected under Clause (a) as well.
Since the trial Judge has erroneously exercised jurisdiction vested
in it, the impugned order stands hereby set aside and this revision
petition is allowed.
(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J
6-Sanjay/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
