Rajasthan v. Amit Kumar Gupta S/o

Judgment

1. Amit Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Dinesh Kumar Gupta, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Plot No. 65, Auric Prime-Second, Village Jaisinghpura Bas, Bhankrota, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. ---Respondent/Plaintiff

2. Arun Chahar, Through President Auric Villas Residents Welfare Society Plot No. 15, Auric Villa, Village Jaisinghpura Bas, Bhankrota, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. Praveen Pareek Through Secretary, Auric Villas Resident Welfare Society, Plot No. 16, Auric Villa, Village Jaisinghpura Bas, Bhankrota, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

----Proforma Respondents/Defendants For Petitioner : Mr. Samkit Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nikhil Kumar Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order REPORTABLE 23/05/2025

1. The instant revision petition is preferred by the petitioner- defendant aggrieved from order dated 20.01.2025 in Civil Suit No.374/2024 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge No.18, Jaipur Metropolitan-I (Headquarters Sanganer), Jaipur, whereby an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:22184] (2 of 9) [CR-60/2025]

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner while relying upon grounds of revision petition submitted that respondent No.1-plaintiff has filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction for a scheme named in para 2 of plaint and for which “Auric Villas Residents Welfare Society” is constituted under the Rajasthan Apartment Ownership Act, 2015 (hereafter referred to ‘the Act of 2015’). Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent- plaintiff has filed a suit in a matter relating to maintenance of a Residents Welfare Association (RWA). He further submitted that the petitioner-defendant has filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the Act of 2015 itself provides for complete resolution mechanism for dispute between member and RWA and competent authority is authorized to adjudicate the dispute but the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a civil suit. Learned counsel submitted that learned trial Court has dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, without considering the provision of Section 31 of the Act of 2015.

3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the respondent No.1-plaintiff and submitted that while deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, no Court can take note of defence of opposite party and the trial Court has not committed any error while dismissing the application. He further submitted that if there is any objection about jurisdiction of the trial Court then same can be considered after framing the issues and leading the evidence. He also submitted that the order passed by the trial Court is in accordance with law and there is no scope of interference. [2025:RJ-JP:22184] (3 of 9) [CR-60/2025]

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

5. Admittedly, a Society (as mentioned in plaint) was developed by present petitioner in the name of Auric Prime-II, Village Jaisinghpura Bas, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur and plaintiff is one of the plot holder in the Society. The provisions of the Act of 2015 are applicable in the instant case. The Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are office bearers of RWA

6. The plaintiff has filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction and petitioner-defendant No.3 has filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC which was dismissed by the trial Court on 20.01.2025. 7. The Rajasthan Apartment Ownership Act, 2015 was promulgated on 29.05.2019 after publication in State Gazette. The Act was enacted with following object:- “An Act to provide for the ownership of an individual apartment in a building and of an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities appurtenant to such apartment and to make such apartment and interest heritable and transferable and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Whereas, with a view to securing that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as to sub serve the common good, it is expedient to provide for the ownership of an individual apartment in a building and of an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities appurtenant to such apartment, and to make such apartment and interest heritable and transferable and to provide for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.” [2025:RJ-JP:22184] (4 of 9) [CR-60/2025]

8. Section 3(f) provides for association and Section 3(i) defines the common areas and facilities.

9. Chapter-V provides for association of apartment owners and by-laws for regulation of affairs of such association whereas Chapter-III provides for obligation of promoter. Section 10(2) of the Act provides as under: “10)-(2) The promoter shall on formation of the Association under section 13 hand over the following documents to the Association, namely :- (a) a certified copy of the approved plan of the building ; (b) details of the construction ; (c) complete diagram of wiring ; (d) complete plumbing layout ; (e) details of common areas and including copies of facilities warranties, maintenance agreements, etc. in respect thereof ; (f) such other information relating to building available with the promoter as may be required by the Association in the interest of the apartment owners.”

10. The suit for injunction was filed by respondent no. 1 plaintiff before learned civil court wherein after service of notice, an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was filed by present petitioner and same was dismissed by trial court. Before proceeding to consider law relating to Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, it is appropriate to refer Section 31 of the Act of 2015 which prohibits exercise of jurisdiction by any court or authority. Section 31 is reproduced as under: “Bar of jurisdiction of courts, etc- No court or other authority shall have, or be entitled to exercise, any jurisdiction, power [2025:RJ-JP:22184] (5 of 9) [CR-60/2025] or authority in relation to the matters for which Competent Authority or the Appellate Authority has, or is entitled to exercise, jurisdiction, power or authority under this Act.”

11. Chapter-VII provides for authorities under the Act of 2015, to exercise jurisdiction and subject matter reserved for adjudication. Section 24 provides for competent authority, appointment of competent authority and its functions whereas Section 25 provides for duties of competent authority and Section 26 provides for appellate authority and provision of appeal. Section 27 prescribes a binding effect of the provisions under the Act of 2015 upon promoters, apartment owners and tenant etc., notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract, undertaking or other instruments. 12. Section 2 provides for application of Act, wherein it is made clear that the Act shall apply to all apartments in any building constructed or converted into apartments by the promoter before or after commencement of this Act. Herein, considering aforesaid, the Rajasthan apartment Ownership Act, 2015 is applicable in the instant case and the trial court is under an obligation to act in accordance with the provision of Act of 2015.

13. Order VII Rule 11 CPC deals with the grounds for rejection of plaint aiming to prevent frivolous or defective suits. The provision enables the Court to reject a plaint, if certain conditions are satisfied. The provision of Order VII Rule 11 CPC is reproduced as under:- [2025:RJ-JP:22184] (6 of 9) [CR-60/2025] Rejection of plaint— The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:— (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law : (e) where it is not filed in duplicate; (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provision of rule 9: “Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature form correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp- paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.”

14. In case of T. Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC (1) 467, Hon’ble Supreme Court while examining the aforesaid provision has held that the trial court must remember that if on a meaningful and not a formal reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, it should exercise the power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. If clever drafting has created an illusion of a cause of action, it has to be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party under Order X of the Code. [2025:RJ-JP:22184] (7 of 9) [CR-60/2025]

15. The object of the said provision is further considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sopan Sukhdeo Sable vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner : (2004) 3 SCC 137 and in Popat and Kotecha Property vs. State Bank of India Staff Association, (2005) 7 SCC 510, and held that no court shall permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in a suit in case the suit does not disclose a cause of action or barred by any law or law of limitation.

16. In case of Saleem Bhai vs. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 1 SCC 557 that the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application thereunder are the averments in the plaint. The trial court can exercise the power at any stage of the suit i.e. before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, the averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the defendants in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage.

17. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dahibhen Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali through LRs and Ors. 2020 SCC Online (SC) 562 while dealing with an appeal against an order allowing rejection of a suit at the threshold, had occasion to consider various precedents to discuss the intent under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that if no cause of action is disclosed in the plaint, or if the suit is barred by law, court would not permit protraction of the proceedings and it [2025:RJ-JP:22184] (8 of 9) [CR-60/2025] would be necessary to put an end to the shame litigation so that further judicial time is not wasted.

18. After placing reliance upon Azhar Hussain Vs. Rajiv Gandhi 1986 SCC (SUPP) 315, Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that the entire purpose of conferment of such power is to ensure that a litigation, which is meaningless and bound to prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time and space of the Courts. The power on the Court to terminate a civil action is, however, a drastic one, but the conditions enumerated in Order VII Rule 11 CPC are required to be strictly adhered to.

19. Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with such an application seeking rejection of a plaint clarified that while determining any application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the court should restrict itself to the plaint and should not go into the detail facts as provided under the written statement or even in the application filed for rejection of plaint. While scrutinizing the averments in the plaint, the Court can read documents annexed and relied upon in the plaint.

20. Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC provides that a plaint should be rejected if the suit is barred by any law. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ramisetty Venkatanna Vs. Nasyam Jamal Saheb 2023 INSC 458 has observed that plaint should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (a)(d) of CPC if it is vexatious, illusory cause of action and barred by law.

21. The law over the point clearly shows that an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC can be allowed to reject a civil suit if [2025:RJ-JP:22184] (9 of 9) [CR-60/2025] same is barred by any law and the trial Court is duty bound to consider the provision of law while deciding the application.

22. The facts narrated by plaintiff clearly indicate that a residents welfare society was already created for the Society developed by the present petitioner. The plaintiff has filed a civil suit without approaching the competent authority, as provided under the Act of 2015. It is also apparent from the plaint that the dispute between plaintiff and the Society (RWA) is relating to discontinuation of facilities to plaintiff. The reason to discontinue such facility is not mentioned by the plaintiff in his plaint. The plaintiff has sought relief against the President and Secretary of RWA. The Act of 2015 is specifically provides for such contingency, therefore, a civil suit is not maintainable before the Civil Court and the same is barred under Section 31 of the Act of 2015. Thus, the trial Court has committed serious error while dismissing the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

23. As a result, the instant revision petition is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 20.01.2025 is set aside. An application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by present petitioner is also allowed and Civil Suit No.374/2024 is rejected. No order as to costs.

24. Miscellaneous application, if any, stands disposed of. MR/62 (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J