CLR/48/2022
2022 Latest Caselaw 1889 UK

                   Office Notes,
                reports, orders or
                 proceedings or
Sl. No   Date                                   COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
                  directions and
                Registrar's order
                 with Signatures
                                     CLR No. 48 of 2022
                                     Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Mr. Siddhartha Singh, Advocate for the revisionist.

As a consequence of rejection of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, by an order dated 27.08.2019, which was passed by the learned trial Court, the defendant - revisionist had preferred a Civil Revision No. 114 of 2019, which was decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its judgment of 20.11.2021. Certain observations, qua the challenge to be given to the sale-deed dated 04.09.2003, was observed in para no.3 of the said judgment, but however, subsequently in view of the developments which has taken place during the pendency of the suit, it was observed that the propriety of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) has become infructuous.

Be that as it may. The defendant had preferred an application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC, before the learned trial Court, which apparently as per the language used by legislature, by its insertion made to the provisions by Act No. 104 of 1976, the provisions contained under Order 12 Rule 6 are directory in nature and they are not mandatory and it is absolutely a discretionary power of the Court to invoke Order 12 Rule 6 in order to enable to decide the suit based on the satisfaction of the ingredients provided under Order 12 Rule 6 itself. The revisionist's application has been rejected by the court of learned IVth Additional Civil Judge/Dehradun by the impugned order dated 31.05.2022.

Having heard the learned counsel for the revisionist, this Court is of the view that when a discretionary power has been vested with the Court under Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC and particularly, if it is read in context with the prior failure of the proceeding under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, preferred by the revisionist, it would be apt that the suit itself be decided on its merits and the discretionary power, which is provided under Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC, may not be necessarily and invariably invoked for the purposes of curtailing the proceedings of the suit, which is otherwise required to be decided on merits to settle the lis inter-se between the parties, on its own merits. In that view of the matter the interpretation given to the effect of the judgment rendered by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court, in an earlier revision on 20.12.2021 is not required to be disturbed by this Court at that stage while exercising revisional powers under Section 115 of the CPC, particularly for the purposes of invoking the discretionary powers provided under Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC. Hence the revision is dismissed, however the dismissal of this revision may not be construed that petitioner's contention, which has been raised in the present revision, by putting a challenge to the impugned order of 21.05.2022 will not be closing his opportunity to raise all his contentions on the issue of the sustainability of this suit, when the suit itself is adjudicated on its merit.

Subject to the aforesaid exceptions, the revision stands dismissed.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 29.06.2022 Shubham