IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUREAT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH /2011 CIVIL REVISION No. 5^ APPLICANTS (Defendants) :1. \^.,- ^\' .-..'-•. ¥ \s?r^'^?'' ^x^ .-fss" ^'"^)< ^ >"..^' Smt. Manbhavti (Dead) Through LR'S l^(a) Badri Prasad Sharma S/o Late Shrmivas Sharraa, Aged about 62 years, R/o Beed Para, Raigarh-(C.G.) (bj Babuial Sharma S/o Late Shrinivas Sharma, Aged about *'^ icecf TaT^%a4Sw-L-CC-(3,3 years, R/o 42'i4pT!r (F r} 2.{a) Govind Sharma S/o Badri Prasad Sharma, Aged a'bout 36 years (^) Rupesh Sharma S/o Badri Prasad Shanna, Aged about 34 years (ej Rakesh Sharma S/o Badri Prasad Sharma, Aged about 28 years (d) Roshan Sharma S/o Badri Prasad Sharma, Aged about 26 years Nos. 2(a) (b) (c) (d) R/o Beed Para, Raigarh-(C.G.) VERSUS SON-APPLICANTS (Plauitifis} 1. 2. Hari Ram Agrawal S/o Late Kalicharan Agrawal^ Aged alaout 68 years, Occupation - Business Anil Kumar Agrawal S/o Hari •'i -. "•-w-^'niwreyar^^—i—ir. ,„,. ^•"n'FTi^a'^Ej^ngnRiyggg, Ram Agrawal, Aged about 38 years Occupation - Business, Both R/o Danipara, Raigarh MEMO OF REVISION U/S 115 OFTHECQDE^FCIVIL PROCEDURE i ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA. J. Civil Revision No. 56 of 2011 APPLICANTS Smt. Manbhavti (dead) through LR's 1 (a) Badri Prasad Sharma and oftera. Versus RESPONDENTS Hari Ram Agrawal and another. Shri S.N. Nande, counsel Tor petitioners. ORAL ORDER (09/05/2011) Following oral order of the Court was passed by Prashant Kumar Mishra. J. Heard. (2) The trial Court has rejected defendants/petitioners application under Order7Rule11ofC.P.C. (3) Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the previous owner of the suit namely Smt. Pushpadevi and Smt. Imarti Bai has preferred a suit for eviction and recovery of possession based on title. however Uie plaintifls failed to pay Court fee and later on the said suit was dismissed for want of prosecution. The previous owner thereafter atienated the property in favour of the present plaintiffs who have filed the present suit seeking recov^ry of possession and arrears of rent. Learned counsel would further submit that since the earlier swtwas dismissed for wantof prosecution the present suit is not maintainable and the ptaint should have been rejected under Order 7 Rule 1 1 (d) of C.P.C. :\. ^^-..,,;..i.CTi"w^.,i-.-.,. .^..... '--'T3^. -'l,^, ^ r^^s^-. 1 ii'/"5SSSi, KI' '^ss^'^ ^. -^^' .fc --2,- (4) This Court has perused the documents annexed with the revision petition, Under clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 a plaint can be rejected where th®suit appears from statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. From the impugned order it does not appear that the petitioners have specifically pleaded as to under which provision of taw the present suit is barred and therefore the application should be rejected. (5) It is to be seen that the ISrevious owner of the property had disposed of the property in favour of the present ptaintiffe who have filed the present suit Tor recovery of possession and arrears of rent. Dismissal of earlier suit for want of prosecution which was preferred by the previous owner would not debar the present plaintiff to institute the present suit as the cause of action for filing the present suit has occurred after the purchase of the suit property by the present plaintiffe and therefore the present suit is not based on the same cause of action. (6) If the petitionere have raised a plea denying the title of the present plaintiffis on the ground that their predecessor in interest had no valid title in themselves, the trial Court, while deciding the suit, shall d^initely d«:idethe said issue. (7) The trial Court has not committed any iltegality or material irreguiarity while passing the impugned order. The revision fails and is hereby dismissed. . s^~ prashant Kumar Mishra Judge ^ ;»