AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Petition is directed against the order dated 25.11.2022 passed by the 1st Civil Judge, Class-1, Baloda Bazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara in Civil Suit No.1-A/2018 whereby, the application filed by the legal heirs of Defendants No.1,2 5 & 6 under Order 6 Rule 16 CPC to struck off some pleadings made in the Plaint, has been allowed.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner/Plaintiff has filed a Civil Suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction stating that he has purchased a suit property from original Defendant No.7-Gopal Sahu on 14.09.2007 and mutated his name in the revenue records. It is pleaded that for the same land, a Civil Suit bearing No.61-A/1983 was filed by Smt Ram Pyari Bai against Keju Ram and others in the Court of Civil Judge, Class-2, Baloda Bazar, which was decided on 10.01.1986 and against the said judgment and decree, Keju Ram and another filed a Civil Appeal bearing No.39-A/1998 against Arjit Singh and others in the Court of 2nd Additional District Judge, Baloda Bazar to the Court of District Judge, Raipur which was decided on 24.07.1998 and Keju Ram filed Second Appeal No.711/1998 before the High Court and in the said case, the parties have settled their dispute amicably and have not pressed the Appeal, therefore, the matter was dismissed vide order dated 04.01.2013. He further submits that in the said litigation, the present Petitioner/Plaintiff was not a party, therefore, the orders/judgments and decrees are not binding upon the Plaintiff for which, pleading was made but the trial Court has struck off the same in an erroneous manner, hence this Petition. He further submits that the impugned order is not sustainable as the parameters for striking off the pleadings have been mentioned under Order 6 Rule 16 CPC and no such ground was attracted and the pleadings made by the Plaintiff are just and proper as he has challenged the earlier orders and decrees. He fairly submits that in stead of praying for such a relief in the Plaint, the same should have been amended as the said decree was not binding upon the present Petitioner/Plaintiff and he may be given liberty to amend such pleading.
Shri Sahu submits that State is a formal party.
Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and also perused the documents annexed with the Petition carefully.
Considering the prayer made above, service of notice upon the Respondent is dispensed with.
It is not disputed that the present Petitioner/Plaintiff made an averment in the Plaint that he is not a party to the earlier suit, therefore, on such basis, he has filed the present case challenging the earlier judgment and order which is not binding upon him, therefore, on such premises, the pleadings made by the Petitioner/Plaintiff are necessary to resolve the controversy, therefore, the order impugned is not sustainable and is hereby set aside.
In view of above, the Petitioner/Plaintiff is at liberty to amend the pleadings in the relief clause by filing a suitable application stating that the earlier judgment and decree is not binding upon him.
With the aforesaid observation, the instant Writ Petition stands disposed of.