Himalaya Commercial Complex Private Limited v. Meharban Singh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CR No. 7 of 2014 • Himalaya Commercial Complex Private Limited, Supela Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Thru- Chairman- Santosh Golchha, S/o Late K.C. Golchha, Aged about 55 Years, R/o Malviya Nagar, Durg, P.S. & Distt. Durg (C.G.) (Defendent) ---- Applicant

Versus

• Meharban Singh S/o Darshan Singh, Aged about 40 Years, R/o Quarter No. 22, Sindhi Colony, Raipur Naka, Durg, P.S. & Tah. Durg, Distt. Durg (C.G.) (Plaintiff) ---- Non-applicant ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicant :

Shri Suyash Dhar, Advocate For Non-applicant :

Shri Shobhit Koshta, Advocate ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 22/07/2016 1.

Respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction restraining the defendant/applicant from interfering with peaceful possession of Shop No.54-A. The defendant after appearing in the civil suit, filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint stating inter-alia that the award dated 31-03-2012 passed by the Arbitrator is binding between the parties, therefore, the suit is not maintainable. 2.

Trial Court vide impugned order dated 16-01-2014 has rejected the said application against which this revision has been filed. 3.

The Trial Court has clearly recorded a finding that the suit is filed for declaration of title and it is required to be adjudicated in accordance with law by the Civil Court and merely because the award has been passed, the suit has not become non-maintainable. It is well settled law that for the rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) of the CPC, for examination of the plaint,

CR No. 7 of 2014 it should appear that it does not disclose a triable cause of action. It is not the case of the applicant/defendant that the plaint as framed and filed does not disclose triable cause of action. According to defendant on passing the award by the Arbitrator, the suit has become nonmaintainable. 4.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the suit is for declaration of title and permanent injunction and merely because the award has been passed which relates to the said suit shop, it cannot be held that suit is not maintainable.

5.

I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order, this revision deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same in accordance with law. No cost(s).

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Kvr JUDGE