Rajpal Kaur vs Jagsir Singh and Others

Inderjit Singh, J.

Rajpal Kaur alias Kamalpreet Kaur-petitioner/defendant has filed this civil revision petition against Jagsir Singh etc. - respondents under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the impugned order dated 4.1.2014 (Annexure-P. 7) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala as the same is illegal, arbitrary and in contravention of the provisions of law. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

From the record, I find that the defendant/petitioner filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint. It is pleaded that the plaintiff earlier filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction along with possession with regard to the suit property. The said suit was titled as "Jagsir Singh v. Rajpal Kaur". The said suit was dismissed in default for non-appearance of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also not affixed ad valorem Court fee with the plaint.

Upon notice, the plaintiff filed a reply to the application claiming that the application has been filed by the defendants to delay the proceedings. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala vide its order dated 27.5.2013 held that the suit is barred under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. The plaint was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C.

Aggrieved from this order, plaintiff-Jagsir Singh filed appeal before the Court of Additional District Judge, Patiala. The learned Additional District Judge vide order dated 4.1.2014 accepted the appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) and dismissed the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C.

A perusal of the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge shows that the Court has correctly appreciated the law by stating that at the time of deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. the Court is only to see the averments in the plaint and the pleadings of the defendant and defendant''s documents are not to be considered. The learned lower appellate Court has correctly appreciated the law which has been discussed in detail in the order. Otherwise also, the plea that the suit is barred under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. has been taken in the written statement. The trial Court has rejected the plaint on the ground that the same is barred under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. A reading of the said provision shows that where the previous suit has been dismissed in default for non-appearance of the plaintiff, the subsequent suit based on the same cause of action etc. is to be seen from the pleadings of the parties in the earlier suit. It is admitted fact that from the averments of the plaint itself all these facts are not clear. Therefore, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. by considering the averments of the defendant in the written statement as well as the documents, if any, placed on record by the defendant. Otherwise also, the learned first appellate Court has specifically written in the order that the trial Court has mentioned that copy of the plaint of the previous suit has been placed on record by the counsel for the defendant but the examination of the record of the trial Court shows that no such document is available on record. As already held, at this stage, the documents of the defendant cannot be considered and only the averments in the plaint are to be seen.

Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Bhau Ram Vs. Janak Singh and Others, . I have gone through this judgment. In this case, it is specifically held that while considering application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., the Court has to examine the averments in the plaint and the pleas taken by the defendants in its written statement would be irrelevant. The law laid down in this judgment is rather against the petitioner.

Therefore, keeping in view these facts, I find that the impugned order dated 4.1.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala is correct and as per law, which does not require any interference from this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction enshrined under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the same is upheld. Finding no merit in the civil revision petition, the same is dismissed.