Ashish Kumar Dixit vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 20.01.2022 passed by the respondent No.2 in Revenue Case No.3/A-90(7)/2019-20. Vide

the said order, the respondent No.2 authority has rejected two applications filed by the petitioner, one under Order 7 Rule 11(D) of the CPC and the

other application being under Order 16 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC.

The grounds raised for rejection of the two applications as regards the application under Order 7 Rule 11 (D) CPC, the contention raised by the

petitioner that the application before the respondent No.2 is not maintainable and the only option available for the respondent No.3 would be a Civil

Suit, was not accepted by the respondent No.2 authority on the factual matrix of the case where there is no dispute so far as the property which was

originally owned by one Smt. Sumitra Gupta and after her death the property was later on inherited by her grandson Sandeep Gupta, who in turn, has

sold the property to the respondent No.3 and as such the respondent No.3 as of now undisputedly is the landlord.

There is also no dispute as is evident from the pleadings that the petitioner had occupied the premises in the capacity of a tenant and was paying the

rent to the landlord till 2010.

The second application was decided by the respondent authority on the ground that said witness whom the petitioner intended to call was not

relevant as he was the ex owner of the said property which means that after the sale deed having been executed and the respondent No.3 becomes

the owner of that property, the presence of the earlier landlord may not be necessary for deciding the application which is pending consideration

before the respondent No.2.

Having heard the contentions put forth by the counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of pleadings, this court is of the opinion that the findings so

far as the decision of the respondent No.2 while deciding the application under Order 16 Rule 1 & 2 CPC is concerned, the same seems to be proper,

legal and justified and does not warrant any interference of this court in the given admitted factual matrix of the case.

As regards the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is concerned, this court is of the opinion that the findings of the authority is also one which

does not warrant any interfence for the reason that the authority concerned has only held that the application has to be decided on its own merits after

the pleadings are complete.

Since the petitioner has raised the objection so far as maintainability of the application is concerned, we leave it open for the respondent No.2 to

decide the said issue after the pleadings are complete and evidences are led by either side in support of their respective claim. This in other words

means that after the pleadings are complete and the parties have led their evidence, the respondent No.2 while proceeding to decide the matter finally

shall first decide the issue as regards the maintainability of the application in the light of the objection raised by the petitioner and if required then to

proceed further and decide the claim on its own merits.

This court does not find any strong case made out as of now calling for an interference with the impugned order. The writ petition accordingly

stands disposed of.