Km. Chandni Tikku vs Samit Tikku

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

This civil revision has been filed by the revisionist/defendant against the order dated 10.09.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Haldwani, District Nainital in Civil Suit No.107 of 2012, Samit Tikku Vs. Km. Chandni Tikku, which is pending since 2012. Km. Chandni Tikku who

was the defendant before the court below is the revisionist before this Court. The suit was for partition between the plaintiff and defendant who are

brother and sister respectively.

After the exchange of pleadings between the parties various issues were framed on 21.12.2015 and one of the issues was a preliminary issue

regarding the valuation of the suit itself. The preliminary issue was decided on 11.01.2016 and thereafter the evidence of the plaintiff was closed on

18.12.2017 and the matter was fixed for 23.02.2018 for cross-examination of the defendant. Since then the matter is being adjourned at the hands of

the defendant.

Meanwhile, on 10.08.2018, an application was moved by the revisionist before the court below saying that due to inadvertence, she could not make

a proper plea regarding framing of an issue which was that the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. This application of the

defendant has been rejected by the learned Trial Court vide the impugned order dated 10.09.2018. In the order dated 10.09.2018, details of the

previous dates are given where it has been stated that the plea of inadvertence has wrongly been taken by the defendant and the application itself has

been filed with an inordinate delay, which has not been explained. The court below came to the conclusion that this application has been filed merely

as a dilatory tactic, and is an abuse of the process of the Court, and hence it was dismissed.

Even assuming for the sake of argument that there was such a plea in the written statement for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11

CPC, and such an issue was not framed as a preliminary issue while framing other issues, the defendant should have challenged it way back in

December, 2015 itself by way of a revision. This has not been done. Not only this, the preliminary issues which were framed have already been

decided in favour of the plaintiff and the entire evidence of the plaintiff has been completed and the matter is now fixed for the cross-examination of

the defendant. At this stage, the aforementioned application was moved by the defendant. Therefore, there is no doubt here that the application has

been moved for no other purpose but as only a dilatory tactic.

The civil revision has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed. It is made clear that the Trial Court shall expedite the matter and trial shall be

done on day-to-day basis and shall be completed as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months from today.