IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 703 of 2009 (M/S) [ 1. Asgar Ali S/o Shri Thokar Ali 2. Smt. Hazara W/o Shri Mahandi Hasan Both R/o Village Mehuwala Mafi, Pargana Pachhawadoon, Tehsil and Distrtict Dehradun. ...…………. Petitioners Versus Smt. Moona Khatoon W/o Shri Tareef Ahmed R/o Village Mehuwala Mafi Pargana Pachhawadoon, Tehsil Sadar, District Dehradun. ...………… Respondent Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner (defendant). Mr. Pawan Mishra, Advocate for the respondent (plaintiff). Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners (defendants) have challenged the order dated 11.01.2008, passed by the trial court (I Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun), in Suit No. 651 of 2005, and order dated 19.03.2009, passed by revisional court (Addl. District Jude / F.T.C. V, Dehradun), in Civil Revision No. 25 of 2008. 2 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record. 3) It appears that the respondent (plaintiff) instituted Suit No. 651 of 2005, for permanent injunction against the petitioners (defendants) in respect of Khasra No. 2122-B, measuring area 188.32 sq. mt., situated in Mauja Mehuwala Mafi, Pargana Central Doon, District Dehradun. 4) The petitioners (defendants) moved an application No. 32-C under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short C.P.C.), for rejection of the plaint. After hearing the parties, the trial court rejected the application on the ground that from the pleadings made in the plaint, the same is not liable to be rejected. Aggrieved by said order, the defendant filed Civil Revision No. 25 of 2008. The said revision was also dismissed. Hence, this writ petition. 5) Learned counsel for the petitioners (defendants) submitted that the petitioners (defendants) are the recorded tenure holder of the land in suit. It is further contended that the plaintiff under the garb of injunction is trying to seek declaration of the title, and such relief cannot be granted by the Civil Court in view of Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. 3 6) It is settled principle of law that for the purposes of rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., only the pleadings made in the plaint are required to be seen. Whether, the defendant is recorded tenure holder or not, and whether suit is barred under Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 or not, are the questions which rises only after issues are framed on said points on the basis of pleadings raised by the defendant. It is one thing to dismiss a suit after framing issues and hearing the parties on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction, or the suit was not maintainable, and it is another thing to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. For the purposes of rejection of a plaint under order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., the plea raised in the written statement are not required to be seen. What can be seen is the plaint itself. There is no mention in the plaint that the defendant is recorded tenure holder of the land, nor is there any prayer for declaration that the plaintiff be declared Bhumidhar. In such circumstances, unless and until the defendant raises these pleas and issues are framed, the court cannot give its finding as to whether the suit is liable to be dismissed, or not? 7) For the reasons as discussed above, this Court does not find any error of law committed by the trial court in rejecting the application of the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. The revisional court has 4 also not committed any error of law by dismissing the revision. 8) In the above circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed with the observation that though the plaint is not liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., it shall remain open for the trial court to examine the issue as to whether the suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction or otherwise, after framing the issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, and hearing them. (Stay Application No. 3767 of 2009 also stands dismissed). [ (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. September 14, 2009. H. Negi