Mukesh Kumar vs Umesh Rai

Heard learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner.

The present petition has been filed for the following reliefs as formulated by the defendant/petitioner--

"i. To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ for quashing the order dated 21.09.2019 passed by the Sub Judge-V, Danapur in T.S. No. 153 of 2016 illegally rejecting the prayer of the defendant/petitioner for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC ignoring the legal grounds raised by the defendant/petitioner;

ii. To grant any other relief or reliefs to which the defendant/petitioner is found entitled in the facts and circumstances3.Learnedcounselofthe forcasethe." defendant/petitioner submits that the plaint ought to have been rejected as prayed for by the defendant/petitioner, inasmuch as the suit was completely frivolous and vexatious. It is submitted that Moti Raj Devi, mother of defendant no. 1 and mother-in-law of defendant no. 2, purchased the suit land (19 decimals) by registered sale deed dated 18.04.1978 from Bishnu Dayal Rai, who had received the property on partition after death of his father Raghunandan Rai. Subsequently by registered sale deed dated 29.01.1988 Moti Raj Devi sold 10 decimals of land out of 19 decimals in favour of Dwanda Bahadur Sinha, after which Moti Raj Devi paid rent for 9 decimals of land and Dwanda Bahadur Sinha paid rent for 10 decimals of land. Construction of building on the suit land was completed in the year 1994.

It is submitted that the plaintiff/respondent has come up with a completely false story that 57 decimals of land stands recorded in the survey record of right in the name of Dhani Kumhar, out of which he sold 19 decimals of land in favour of Shiv Mahadev Rai, father of the plaintiff/respondent. The plaintiff/respondent claims to have received the suit land upon partition in the family of Shiv Mahadev Rai.

It is therefore submitted that in view of the documents showing purchase of the suit land and construction of the house by the plaintiff/defendant, the plaintiff/respondent has no cause of action and the plaint ought to have been rejected.

Moreover, it is submitted that proper Court fee has not been paid in respect of 19 decimals of land valued at Rs. 9,50,000/- only, as against a valuation of Rs. 1,94,75,000/- on the basis of Government rate.

Learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner relies on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T. to submit that the vexatious plaint ought to be rejected so that bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage.

Having heard learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner and on consideration of the materials on record, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. The basis of claim in the plaint cannot be termed, at first sight, as a frivolous and vexatious one. The plaintiff/respondent has claimed title on the basis of certain facts which required to be proved in course of trial and it would be premature at this stage to hold that no cause of action is disclosed in the plaint. The defence of the defendant/petitioner cannot be gone into at this premature stage.

From a perusal of the impugned order, it also transpires that the defendant/petitioner has not brought on record any material in support of his contention that proper Court fee has not been paid.Arivandandamvs.T.V.Satyapal and another, AIR 1977 SC 2421

The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T. Arivandandam's case (supra) relied on by the defendant/petitioner does not also come to his aid as the same is distinguishable on facts. In that case the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the defendant/petitioner had filed and lost a series of cases and was accordingly condemned for resorting to gross abuse of the process of the Court repeatedly and unrepentently. It was held that a plaint ought to be rejected if on a careful reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue. Such is not the case here as the plaintiff/respondent is claiming his title based on certain facts enumerated in the plaint.

This Court therefore does not find any illegality, infirmity or error of jurisdiction in the impugned order. The petition stands dismissed.