Jitan Rai v. Munni Devi

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.776 of 2016 (2) dt.29-09-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.776 of 2016 ====================================================== Jitan Rai .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

Munni Devi .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Shiva Shankar Sharma For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 29-09-2016 Heard learned counsel, Mr. S.S. Sharma, appearing for the petitioner.

2.

Perused the impugned order dated 20.01.2016 passed by the learned Munsif, Danapur in T.S. No. 68 of 2015, whereby the learned court below has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. praying for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaint does not disclose cause of action.

3.

From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the court below has passed a reasoned order. It is settled principle of law that at the time of consideration of an application Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., the statement or defence, pleaded in the written statement or in the application under Order 7 Rule 11, cannot be considered. Only the statement made in the plaint is required to be gone into. Now, therefore, the court below, considering all these

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.776 of 2016 (2) dt.29-09-2016 aspects of the matter, has rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. therefore, in my opinion, there is no jurisdictional error, as such, this civil miscellaneous application is dismissed. brajesh/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) U