Santosh @APPELLANT@Hash Mamraj

Petitioners preferred this revision petition against the impugned order dated 05.01.2017 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bansoor, District

Alwar in Civil Suit No. 12/2014 (Mamraj And Ors. vs. Santosh And Ors.) whereby learned Court below dismissed the application submitted by

petitionersdefendants under Order 10 and Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC.

The brief facts of the case are that respondents- plaintiffs filed a civil suit before learned Additional District Judge, Bansoor, District Alwar against the

petitioners- defendants for cancellation of sale deed No. 1190 dated 09.05.2013 and sale deed No. 1537 dated 29.05.2013 registered at Sub Registrar

office Bansoor, District Alwar. Summons of the suit were issued for service of petitioners- defendants. After service of summons, petitioners-

defendants put their appearance before the Court below and filed an application under order 7 Rule 11 and order 10 read with section 151 of C.P.C.

stating therein that the suit has not been filed on proper court fees because the valuation of the property is Rs. 50 lacs. No notice under Section 80 of

CPC has been given to Sub Registrar, Bansoor, which is mandatory. Registered sale deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff- respondent on

06.01.1961 which is ipso-facto void due to the restriction under Section 42-B of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 because the land in dispute belongs to

the scheduled caste persons, which cannot be purchased by the person belonging to general caste. Another suit is also pending before the S.D.O.,

Bansoor on the same cause of action. Accordingly, the present suit is not maintainable.

After hearing on the application, learned Court below dismissed the application, against which this revision petition is filed.

Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Lokendra Singh Shekhawat learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

the suit was filed without issuing notice under Section 80 CPC to Sub Registrar, Bansoor and the Court fees is not properly paid by the respondent-

plaintiff.

He further submits that the disputed land belongs to scheduled caste persons which cannot be transferred in favour of the respondent- plaintiff who

belongs to general caste and on similar facts another suit is pending before S.D.O., Bansoor, therefore the plaint should have been rejected but learned

Court below wrongly dismissed the application, therefore this revision petition may be allowed and the application submitted by petitioners under Order

10 and Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC may be allowed and the plaint may be rejected, in alternate it may be stayed.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order and available record.

So far as, provision under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is concerned, at the stage of deciding application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, Court has to look into

only plaint.

From the perusal of application submitted by petitioners, it reveals that the grounds which are mentioned in the application and argued before the Court

below and before this Court are not there in the plaint but it is defence of petitioners- defendants, which cannot be considered at the stage of deciding

application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

So far as, prayer regarding Order 10 CPC is concerned, it is not applicable in the given circumstances, learned Court below also observed in the

impugned order that the objections taken in the application are mixed question of facts and law, which cannot be decided without framing of issues and

after considering all theses facts, learned Court below rightly dismissed the application, which doesn’t require any interference by this Court and

this revision petition devoids merit which is hereby dismissed. Stay application also stands dismissed.