Queens Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan) v. Sanganer Road Bypass Scheme Gurjar Ki Thadi, Jaipur

Kishan Singh S/o Madhav Singh Diwan, R/o Ms.77 New Sanganer Road Bypass Scheme Gurjar Ki Thadi, Jaipur

2. Shivdan Singh S/o Namalum, Purv Adhyaksh Shri Ganesh Garh Nirman Sahkari Samiti, Office Address Plot No. 60 Ganesh Nagar-A, New Sanganer Road, Sodala, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

3. Bhagirath Singh S/o Mukund Singh, Purv Mantri Shri Ganesh Garh Nirman Sahkari Samiti, Office Address Plot No. 60 Ganesh Nagar-A, New Sanganer Road, Sodala, Jaipur (Rajasthan) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ved Pal Shashtri For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN 17/01/2025 Order

1. Instant revision petition is preferred by petitioners defendant Nos. 1 and 2 aggrieved from dismissal of application under Order VII rule 11 CPC on 21.02.2024 in civil suit No.105/2023 by learned Additional Civil Judge No.4, Jaipur Metro-I.

2. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that plaintiff has filed a civil suit for permanent injunction for the property [2025:RJ-JP:2608] (2 of 5) [CR-126/2024] mentioned in para No.1 which was allotted to present petitioners (defendant Nos. 1 and 2) and on the basis of allotment, lease deed has been issued by JDA. He further submitted that the dispute as raised by plaintiff clearly shows that it is a dispute with regard to allotment and demarcation of land between members of Housing Society. He also submitted that if there is any dispute with regard to society or inter se between the members then same may be adjudicated by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Section 58 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Society Act, 2001. He further submitted that a dispute is already pending before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Society and a civil suit is not maintainable before the civil court. He also submitted that, if there is any dispute with regard to any action by JDA then same can be filed before the JDA Tribunal but not before the civil court. At last, he submitted that the trial court has committed a serious error while dismissing the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

3. None present on behalf of respondent No.1 at the time of arguments. On earlier occasion he sought time to seek instructions.

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

5. Plaintiff Kishan has filed a civil suit against four persons for permanent injunction on the ground that plaintiff is having possession of the property mentioned in para No.1 and he is threatened by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 for dispossession and transfer. This civil suit was filed on the basis of cause of action accrued on 15.11.2023, though the plaintiff has mentioned that an [2025:RJ-JP:2608] (3 of 5) [CR-126/2024] Administrator was appointed upon housing society and thereafter plan was revised. The plaintiff further mentioned that defendant has procured lease deed from JDA. The pendency of dispute before the Deputy Registrar is also mentioned in para No.5. The plaintiff on the basis of physical possession has sought injunction to protect his possession.

6. A perusal of plaint clearly indicated that suit is filed only to maintain possession and no other relief whatsoever has been claimed by the plaintiff. If plaintiff is not in possession then his suit is not maintainable but herein no such averment is made in the application that plaintiff is not in possession of suit property. An application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was filed by defendant No.1 and 2 and same was dismissed by learned trial court on

21.01.2024.

7. 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 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 would be necessary to put an end to the shame litigation so that further judicial time is not wasted.

8. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:2608] (4 of 5) [CR-126/2024] 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, and the conditions enumerated in Order VII, Rule 11 CPC are required to be strictly adhered to.

9. Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with such an application seeking rejection of a plaint clarified that while deciding any application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the court should restrict itself to the plaint and should not go into the detailed 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.

10. 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 a plaint should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (a)(d) of CPC if it has a vexatious or illusory cause of action and is barred by law.

11. Considering the principle while deciding application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, when we peruse the present dispute then the dispute is only for protection of possession and nothing more than protection of possession. The plaintiff has not raised any dispute with regard to issuance of lease deed by JDA. The dispute with regard to allotment of land by society is pending under Section 58 of the Act and same is not subject matter in the suit therefore the grounds raised by counsel for petitioners are not enough to reject the plaint of the plaintiff and trial court has rightly dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. [2025:RJ-JP:2608] (5 of 5) [CR-126/2024]

12. In view of aforesaid we do not find any perversity or illegality in the order passed by the trial court thus, the revision petition sans merit and liable to be dismissed.

13. As a result, the revision petition is hereby dismissed with all pending applications, if any. PREETI VALECHA /148 (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J