High Court refuses to invoke revisional jurisdiction as impugned plaint doesn’t suffer from any irregularity

Rajasthan High Court: The petitioner aggrieved by an order of rejection of his application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC by the Senior Civil Judge, Rajgarh preferred a petition. The respondent filed a suit for eviction and mesne profit against the petitioner-defendant before the Civil Judge, Rajgarh, Churu. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner preferred an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the respondent had terminated his tenancy vide notice dated 30.11.14 and thereafter, the tenancy could not have been terminated by way of yet another notice dated 11.12.15 and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed as the same would be barred by the principle of res judicata. The application was rejected by the court observing that the objections raised by the petitioner could only be decided after framing the issues, on the basis of the evidence to be led by the parties.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterating the stand taken before the court submitted that the tenancy having been terminated w.e.f. 30.11.14, the suit filed on the basis of the cause of action alleged to have been accrued pursuant to the notice dated 11.12.15 is not maintainable.

The High Court held that it is settled law that while deciding an application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d), the court is not competent to go into correctness or otherwise of the allegations contained in the plaint. The Court stated that the plaint can only be rejected if from bare perusal of the statement in the plaint without any addition or subtraction it appears to be barred by law.

The High Court not finding any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the trial court’s verdict refused to exercise its revisional jurisdiction and dismissed the petition stating that the suit as framed in no manner could be said to be barred by law. [Sudesh Kumar Saini v. Shri Satyanarayan Ji Mandir Dharmarth Turst, Post Sadulpur Disstt Churu, 2017 SCC OnLine Raj 2417, decided on 5.7.2017]

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

16 + 5 =