Karkhana Kothi Opposite Balanad Ji Temple Old Basti Jaipur v. Jalebi

Judgment

1. Thakur Ji Shri Rangnath Ji @ Raghunath Ji Virajman Mandir Raghunath Ji @ Rangnath Ji, Opposite City Palace Jalebi Chowk Jaipur Through Mahant/manager/director/pujari Shri Radheyshyam Sharma S/o Late Shri Ramsahay Ji Sharma Mandir Shri Thakur Ji Shri Rangnath Ji Opposite City Palace Jalebi Chowk Jaipur

Shyam Sunder Sharma S/o Late Shri Ramsahay Ji Sharma, Mandir Shri Thakur Ji Shri Rangnath Ji Opposite City Palace Jalebi Chowk Jaipur --------Plaintiffs

3. Thakur Ji Shri Jankinath Ji Rewasa Dham, Tehsil Dataramgarh District Sikar (Raj) Through Manager/nyasi/mahant Tikhana Rewasa Dham Dataramgarh District Sikar (Raj)

4. Basant Kumar Agarwal S/o Late Shri Gulab Chand Agarwal Thakur Ji, Shri Rangnath Ji Opposite City Palace Jalebi Chowk Jaipur (Since Died Through His Legal Representatives) 4/1. Smt. Anuradha W/o Shri Basant Kumar Agarwal, Aged Major R/o P.no. 56 And 57 Deshbhushan Nagar Galtagate Jaipur And Mandir Shri Rangnath Ji Virajman Jantar Mantar And Near City Palace Jaipur 4/2. Shri Virendra Agarwal S/o Shri Basant Kumar Agarwal, Aged Major R/o P.no. 56 And 57 Deshbhushan Nagar Galtagate Jaipur And Mandir Shri Rangnath Ji Virajman Jantar Mantar And Near City Palace Jaipur 4/3. Shri Dheeraj Agarwal S/o Shri Basant Kumar Agarwal, Aged Major R/o P.no. 56 And 57 Deshbhushan Nagar Galtagate Jaipur And Mandir Shri Rangnath Ji Virajman Jantar Mantar And Near City Palace Jaipur ----Respondents [2025:RJ-JP:16618] (2 of 8) [CR-212/2018] For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Satish Kumar Khandal Mr. Aditya Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jai Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN 02/04/2025 Order

1. Instant revision petition is preferred by petitioner-defendant aggrieved from order dated 15.09.2018 in civil suit No. 103/2016 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge No.1, Jaipur Metro- Jaipur whereby an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner while relying upon grounds of revision petition has submitted that respondent Radhey Shyam Sharma has filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction before the Trial Court to declare Will dated 11.11.1978 as void ab initio and further Will dated 19.08.2013 as null and void. He further submitted that the plaintiff has filed a civil suit in the capacity of a Pujari/Mahant/Managing Trustee of temple with averment that he is doing Seva Puja since his forefathers. He also submitted that after reply of notice, petitioner has filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC stating that the plaintiff has no locus to file a civil suit in capacity of Pujari/Mahant/Manager/Managing Trustee as the plaintiff has no right of Seva Puja in temple mentioned by plaintiff. He also submitted that defendant No.2 has filed a suit before the Rent Tribunal and to frustrate the purpose of suit, the instant suit is filed with ulterior motive. He further submitted that there is a delay in challenging the Will in question. He referred the [2025:RJ-JP:16618] (3 of 8) [CR-212/2018] averments in plaint and submitted that no cause of action has accrued to any of plaintiff. He also submitted that as per law, if the plaintiff has any grievance then he can file an application before the Rent Controller and not before the Civil Court. He further places reliance upon judgment in case of S.K. Sharma Vs. Mahesh Kumar Verma AIR 2002 SC 3294 =MANU/SC/0804/2002 and submitted that tenant is not at liberty to deny title of landlord. He also referred the provision of Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act.

3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for respondent-plaintiff and he submitted that the plaintiff is required to mention facts in plaint and not the evidence. He further submitted that how the right accrued to plaintiff is subject-matter of evidence and on basis of facts mentioned in plaint a civil suit is maintainable. He further referred the provision of Order VII Rule 11 CPC and submitted that no Court can look into defence or averments made in application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, therefore, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application.

4. Heard learned counsels for the parties. Perused the record and also perused the judgment as referred by learned counsel for petitioner.

5. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (plaintiffs) have filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction before learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Jaipur Metro-Jaipur, on the basis of cause of action accrued on 21.08.2014 and continued even after notice dated 12.05.2016. The plaintiff has challenged the Will executed on 11.11.1978 by late Shri Janki Vallabhacharya in favor of late Sh. Kalu Ram Ji and also Will dated 19.08.2013 executed [2025:RJ-JP:16618] (4 of 8) [CR-212/2018] by Late Sh. Kalu Ram in favor of Pradeep Khandal. The plaintiff has also sought prohibitory injunction to continue the Seva Puja of deity. During pendeny of civil suit, an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was filed by present petitioner-defendant and same was dismissed by the Trial Court on 15.09.2018 on the ground that the objection raised by defendant(s) are mixed question of law and facts and require evidence for adjudication. After dismissal of application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, instant revision petition is preferred by petitioner-defendant.

6. 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:- 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 : (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 [2025:RJ-JP:16618] (5 of 8) [CR-212/2018] 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.

7. 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 the 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.

8. 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.

9. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:16618] (6 of 8) [CR-212/2018] 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 defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage.

10. 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.

11. 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, and the conditions enumerated in Order VII Rule 11 CPC are required to be strictly adhered to.

12. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:16618] (7 of 8) [CR-212/2018] 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.

13. 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.

14. In case of S.K. Sharma Vs. Mahesh Kumar Verma (supra) held that Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act prescribes that no person who came upon any immovable property by the licence of the person in possession thereof, shall be permitted to deny that such person had a title to such possession of the property. Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act provides that rule of estoppel and a tenant is not permitted to deny the title of the landlord.

15. The petitioner-defendant has referred the case No. 84/2016 filed under Section 6 and 9 of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 before the Rent Tribunal Jaipur Metro, Jaipur. A copy of application filed before Rent Tribunal indicate that present petitioner- defendant has filed an eviction petition with claim of arrears of rent against Sita Ram, Radhey Shyam and Shyam Sunder Sharma. The Rent Control Act proceeding is different and independent of present case.

16. Since, we are considering a revision petition filed after dismissal of application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and our limitation is to consider only facts mentioned in plaint and [2025:RJ-JP:16618] (8 of 8) [CR-212/2018] documents annexed or relied upon in plaint. The respondents- plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 herein have claimed right over the temple property but nowhere they have mentioned that they are accupant on the property of deity as a tenant. No fact about pendency of any petition before the Rent Tribunal was mentioned by the plaintiffs.

17. Having considered aforesaid, we cannot look at defence or the documents submitted by learned counsel for petitioner. The counsel for petitioner has an option under Order XIV Rule 2 CPC to request the Trial Court to frame a specific issue about maintainability, jurisdiction and cause of action and if they are found to be legal issues then same can be decided as preliminary issue without resorting to go for evidence. The Trial Court after considering the submission of both the parties and perusal of the plaint has rightly dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as there is no perversity or illegality in the order passed by the Trial Court, hence, this revision petition sans merit and same is liable to be dismissed.

18. In view of discussions made hereinabove, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed with pending application(s), if any.

19. No order as to costs. MONU /121-S (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J