Shravan Kumar Tiwari v. Raju

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Civil Revision No.38 of 2016 Shravan Kumar Tiwari, aged about 46 years, S/o Late B.N. Tiwari, R/o Dheemar Mohalla, Jalgrih Marg, Tikarapara, Raipur, Tahsil Raipur, Civil and Revenue Distt. Raipur (C.G.) (Plaintiff) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Raju

2. Vivek

3. Maya

4. Mamta Respondents No.1 to 4 are the sons and daughters of Late Nand Kumar Thakur

5. Smt. Uttara, Wd/o Late Nand Kumar Thakur,

6. Smt. Purnima, Wd/o Late Nand Kumar Thakur, All are R/o Village Seoni, P.S. and Tahsil Abhanpur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.)

7. Sharad Kumar Singh, S/o Late Nakool Singh, permanent resident Village Seoni, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Present Address: Near the quarter of Ex. Counselor (Parshad), Shyamnagar, Raipur, Tahsil, Civil and Revenue Distt. Raipur (C.G.)

8. Shashi Kumar Singh, S/o Late Shri Nakool Singh, R/o Village Seoni, P.S. and Tahsil Abhanpur, Civil and Revenue Distt. Raipur (C.G.) (Defendants) ---- Respondents For Petitioner:

Mr. Malay Kumar Bhaduri, Advocate.

For Respondents:

None present though served.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 04/08/2016

1. The plaintiff / petitioner herein filed a suit for specific performance of contract based on two agreements to sell dated 26-3-2007 executed in favor of the plaintiff by the defendants. After appearance, the defendants filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC for dismissal of the suit. The trial Court on that application holding that it would be proper for adjudication directed for taking steps for two separate proceedings based on the two agreements to sell.

2. Mr. Malay Kumar Bhaduri, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the order is without jurisdiction and it does not come within the purview of Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC.

3. A perusal of Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC would show that it contemplates the rejection of plaint where it does not disclose a cause of action; where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being

required by the Court to supply the requisite stamppaper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; where it is not filed in duplicate; and where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9.

4. It appears from the order of the trial Court that none of the requirements as stipulated in Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC are satisfied and therefore the trial Court ought to have rejected the application and could not have allowed the application and issued such direction for taking steps to disintegrate the suit into two suits. Such an order is not contemplated in the provision of Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the trial Court is directed to proceed with the suit as instituted earlier.

5. With the aforesaid observation, the civil revision is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No order as to costs.

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Soma