AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned Advocates for the parties.
The instant civil revision application has been preferred by the applicants, challenging the order dated 23.04.2025, passed by 20th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur, below Exhibit 36, in Regular Civil Suit No.550 of 2024. By the said order, the trial court has rejected the application preferred by the defendants (applicants herein), under Order VII Rule 11(a) and 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “CPC”).
The suit has been instituted by the respondents (original plaintiffs) against the applicants (original defendants) seeking declaration and perpetual as well as mandatory injunction. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their original status before the trial court for the sake of brevity. The defendants had filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and 11(d) of CPC, seeking rejection of plaint on various grounds. The contentions of the defendants are that the plaint does not disclose cause of action, so also the suit is barred by law under the provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, since the plaintiffs have merely sought a negative declaration without seeking declaration of their title or possession. It is their further contention that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The trial court, after hearing the learned Advocates for both the sides, rejected the application vide impugned order dated 23.04.2025. According to the applicants, the impugned order is ex facie erroneous, perverse and therefore, liable to be quashed and set-aside.
Mr. Gupta, learned Advocate for the applicants submitted that the pleadings must establish a right to sue the defendants. He submitted that when the suit is contested particularly when demarcation of boundaries and possession are contested, strict compliance of Order VII Rule 3 of CPC is mandatory. He submitted that the suit plot is jointly owned by four persons, however, the plaintiffs have chosen to implead only two of them as defendants. Therefore, on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties, the plaint is liable to be rejected. He submitted that in pursuance of the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the trial court has not exercised jurisdiction vested in it by law and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set-aside.
Mr. Patil, learned Advocate for the respondents opposed the application and submitted that the cause of action accrued for filing the suit is specifically mentioned in para.14 of the plaint. He submitted that the plaintiffs, being owner of the suit plot, have sought relief of permanent injunction along with declaration regarding status and rights of the parties which is lawful in law. He submitted that mere pleading does not constitute title, rights or ownership of the defendant. Therefore, the suit is not barred by law. He submitted that out of four owners, only two defendants are trying to disturb their possession over the suit plot. Therefore, other two are not added as a party defendants. Hence, the question of non-joinder of necessary parties does not arise. He submitted that the order passed by the trial court is well reasoned order and requires no interference on any count. Accordingly, he prayed for rejection of the revision application.
After hearing the learned Advocates for the parties and going through the record, it is found that the applicants (original defendants) had preferred an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and 11(d) of CPC on various grounds. The first ground was pertaining to whether the plaint discloses cause of action. After going through the recitals of plaint, it is evident that cause of action accrued for filing the suit is specifically mentioned in para.14 of the plaint. It is settled position of law that for ascertaining the accrual of cause of action, recitals of plaint are required to be considered only. As it is found that the plaintiffs have specifically mentioned the cause of action, therefore, there is no substance in the contentions of the defendants that the plaint does not disclose cause of action.
As regards the second ground raised by the defendants that the suit is barred by law, it is submitted that the plaintiffs have sought negative form of declaration. According to the defendants, the plaintiffs ought to have sought declaration that they are having title and possession over the suit plot, which is not claimed by them. Therefore, the suit is not maintainable.
In pursuance of the aforesaid submissions, it is seen that the plaintiffs have filed the suit for (a) declaration that defendants have no right to disturb the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit plot and (b) declaration that the defendants have no right to construct or excavate pits in the area mentioned by letters A-B-C-D in the plaint map. Further prayers regarding perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from making any construction and mandatory injunction directing the defendants not to make any construction, it is clear that the relief claimed by the plaintiffs appears to be negative form of declaration against the defendants. However, the provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act or the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 nowhere discloses that the suit seeking negative form of declaration could be the ground for rejection of plaint.
As per Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief. Provided that no court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so.
The recitals of the plaint if perused, it states that the plaintiffs, being the owners of plot, seeking relief of declaration regarding status of rights of the parties, which is lawful. Since the possession of the defendants is denied over the suit plot by the plaintiffs, therefore, it would be appropriate for the parties to prove the facts by adducing evidence in their support. Without permitting them to adduce evidence, the pleadings cannot be considered for the purpose of constituting title or rights over the property. Hence, the plaintiffs are having their rights to safeguard their rights and property from the outsiders. Therefore, the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs in the plaint cannot be held to be not permissible in pursuance of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.
As regards the objection of the defendants that the plaintiffs have not complied with the provisions of Order VII Rule 3 of CPC, it is found that the schedule of property is described in the plaint as well as in the map. Both the documents are attached and part and parcel of the plaint. As per Order VII Rule 3 of CPC, where the subject-matter of the suit is immovable property, the plaint shall contain a description of the property sufficient to identify it, and, in case such property can be identified by boundaries or numbers in a record of settlement or survey, the plaint shall specify such boundaries or numbers.
As regards the aforesaid objection, the plaint is perused and in the schedule of property attached to the plaint, it gives description of the suit plot. The schedule of the property as well as map are attached and part and parcel of the plaint. Whether the said description or map is correct or not is a question to be decided in the trial. Therefore, on the said ground, the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is not tenable.
As regards the last objection of the defendants that there are two other co-owners of the suit plot and they have not made as a party respondents, the plaint specifically mentions that though there are four co-owners of the suit plot, but there are only two defendants who are disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit plot. Therefore, the suit for declaration and perpetual injunction is prayed only against those defendants, who are disturbing their possession. Again the question is arise that as per Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, whether the plaint can be rejected on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. As per provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the plaint can be rejected in respect of categories which have specifically mentioned vide sub-clause ‘a’ to ‘f’ of Rule 11, in which the ground of non joinder of necessary parties is not mentioned. Hence, as the application is not found to be tenable in law and the order passed by the trial court is also reasonable and adequate, therefore, no case is made out for any interference. Thus, the instant civil revision application stands rejected. No order as to costs.