Harish Kumar And Others vs State Of Rajasthan

Rekha Borana, J

The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 19.01.2019 passed by the Civil Judge, Jodhpur District in Civil Original Suit No.1043/2014 (68/2014) whereby the application under Order VII Rule 11 r.w. Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure as filed by the defendants has been rejected.

Two grounds have been raised by the defendants in the application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC but the only ground argued before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the plaintiff was not the actual owner of the property in question and hence, had no locus standi to file the present suit for injunction.

Counsel submitted that a bare reading of the plaint makes it clear that the plaintiff had claimed his right on basis of the agreement to sell and the same would not vest any title in his favour by virtue of which he could lay the present suit.

The learned Court below while deciding the said application specifically held that the issue whether the plaintiff was the rightful owner of the property, whether the agreement to sell vested any title in him, could be decided only after the issue qua the same been framed and evidence being led on the same. Even if there is any dispute regarding the title of the property in question, the same could not be decided on an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC.

Admittedly, in the present suit, the plaintiff has come up with a case that a vacant land exists between the residential houses of the plaintiff and the defendants and the defendants have tried to encroach upon the same and hence, they deserve to be injuncted/ restrained from doing so. The defendants submitted that the plaintiff being not the rightful owner of the property in question, cannot lay the present suit.

As rightly held by the learned Court below, while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, the Court is required only to go through the pleadings as made in the plaint. The defence of the defendants, if any, cannot be gone into at that stage. The dispute regarding the ownership/title of the property in question, if any, could only be decided after framing of an issue and evidence being led on the same.

In the opinion of this Court, the learned Court below has rightly rejected the application as preferred by the defendants. The impugned order does not deserve any interference and the present revision petition is hence dismissed.

The stay petition as well as all the pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.