WPMS/1552/2025
2025 Latest Caselaw 557 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

WPMS/1552/2025 on 5 June, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

                                                                     2025:UHC:4586
              Office Notes,
             reports, orders
             or proceedings
SL.
      Date    or directions                COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
             and Registrar's
               order with
               Signatures
                               WPMS/1552/2025
                               Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Sagar Kothari, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Advocate for respondent No. 3.

2. Petitioners are defendants in a partition suit filed by respondent Nos. 1 & 2, which is pending before Assistant Collector, First Class, Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar.

3. Petitioners filed an application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, which was rejected by learned Assistant Collector vide order dated 04.01.2025. Thereafter, petitioners challenged said order in a Revision filed under Section 333 of Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The said Revision was dismissed by Board of Revenue vide judgment dated 06.05.2025.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 & 3 that petitioners thereafter filed an application, seeking review of the judgment dated 06.05.2025, which was dismissed by Board of Revenue.

2025:UHC:4586

5. Thus feeling aggrieved by the order passed by Assistant Collector, as affirmed by Board of Revenue, petitioners have approached this Court by filing petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

6. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

7. Petitioners had sought rejection of the plaint on the following grounds:

(i) Plot number has not been stated in the plaint;

(ii) The suit is not properly valued;

(iii) Since petitioner No. 1 has sold his entire share to M/s UltraTech Cement, he cannot maintain the suit and therefore, his addition as plaintiff No. 1 is improper;

herein) should not have been joined as defendants in the suit, as they do not own any land in that khasra number.

8. Learned trial Court held that the grounds taken by the defendants for rejection of the plaint are not sufficient under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. It was further held that the defects, if any, in the plaint are all curable.

9. Learned Revisional Court affirmed the order passed by learned Trial Court by holding 2025:UHC:4586

that for the grounds taken by the defendants (petitioners), the plaint cannot be rejected in a summary manner, inasmuch as the issues raised by the defendants (petitioners) have to be decided based on evidence.

10. It is well settled that a defective presentation of a plaint, cannot result in the rejection of the plaint. The grounds on which a plaint can be rejected are listed under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC. A defect which is curable in nature, does not fall within the ambit of Order VII, Rule 11. This is why even in cases where the relief claimed is under valued or where the relief is properly valued but the plaint is insufficiently stamped, the Court is required to call upon the plaintiff to correct the valuation and supply the requisite stamp papers.

11. The view taken by learned Courts below is in consonance with the law of the land as declared in the case of Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. Vs. Mahaveer Lunia and Others, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1208. Para 8 of the said judgment is reproduced below:-

"8. The position of law is that rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is permissible only when the plaint, on its face and without considering the defence, fails to disclose a cause of action, is barred by any law, is undervalued, or is insufficiently stamped. At this preliminary stage, the court is required to confine its examination strictly to 2025:UHC:4586 the averments made in the plaint and not venture into the merits or veracity of the claims. If any triable issues arise from the pleadings, the suit cannot be summarily rejected."

12. This Court do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by learned trial Court as affirmed by Revisional Court. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.

13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, learned trial Court is requested to make endeavour to decide the suit at an early date.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 05.06.2025 Mahinder/

MAHINDER SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9EA4BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH Date: 2025.06.06 17:55:13 +05'30'