Salomi and Others vs Rajamani

K.K. Sasidharan, J—The respondent instituted a suit against the petitioners in O.S. No. 120 of 2012, before the Subordinate Court, Valliyoor.

The petitioners, after appearance, filed an application in I.A. No. 546 of 2012 invoking Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure to reject the plaint. The learned Trial Judge considered the matter with notice to the respondent and ultimately, dismissed the application, by order dated 05 February, 2013. Feeling aggrieved, the unsuccessful petitioners are before this Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondent miserably failed to plead as to when the alleged tenancy commenced. According to the learned counsel, it is quite unbelievable that a tenancy was created for a fixed sum of Rs. 15,000/- and that too, for a period more than 17 years, without any revision. It was further contended that the learned Trial Judge failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure.

The learned counsel for the respondent justified the impugned order.

The respondent, in his suit in O.S. No. 120 of 2012, contended that he is a tenant under the petitioners. The petitioners, on the other hand, maintained that the property absolutely belongs to them and they are in possession and enjoyment.

The petitioners, in their application in I.A. No. 546 of 2012, contended that the first item is a punja land and the second item is a house site. Similarly, third item is also a wet land. The petitioners have contended that the respondent has not produced any evidence to show his possession of property and as such, the plaint should be axed at the earliest point of time.

The respondent, on the other hand, pleaded that he is a tenant under the petitioners in respect of the suit property and as such, he should be evicted only in the process known to law.

The learned Trial Judge found that even the documents produced by the petitioners to prove possession contain the name of the respondent. Ex. P2 contains the name of the petitioners and respondent. Ex. P. 3 is the Adangal extract in respect of the suit property and the same was issued in the name of the respondent and Thiru. Petchi Chettiyar. Ex. R. 1 filed on behalf of the respondent also contains his name as the person in possession of the property.

The learned Trial Judge, on an over all consideration of the matter, arrived at a factual finding that the issue raised by the respondent requires adjudication. According to the learned Trial Judge, the suit cannot be rejected at the inception on the basis of the materials produced by the petitioners.

The petitioners wanted the suit to be rejected on the ground that the plaint does not make out a cause of action. The documents produced before the Trial Court prima facie proved that there are issues to be decided by the Trial Court. When there are triable issues and the matter requires evidence, such suits cannot be rejected at the threshold, by invoking Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure.

None of the grounds raised by the petitioners would satisfy the ingredients of Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure. I am, therefore, of the view that the learned Trial Judge was perfectly correct in dismissing the application.

In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.

The learned Trial Judge is directed to adjudicate the suit in O.S. No. 120 of 2012 on merits and uninfluenced by the observation contained in the order in I.A. No. 546 of 2012 or the related observation contained in this order.