Revision- 128/08 - Jagdish Kumar & Anr. Vs. Ramdev Chugh & Ors. : Order dt.7.7.08 1/3 S.B. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.128/2008 Jagdish Kumar & Anr. Vs. Ramdev Chugh & Ors. Date of order : 7th July, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. M.C. Bhoot for the petitioner. --------- 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 31.3.2008 whereby the learned trial court rejected the application of the defendant petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. 3. The petitioner defendant claimed that since in the plaint para 2, it was stated by the plaintiffs that lease in favour of Parmeshwari Bai was registered was valid only upto the period 8.8.1971 thereafter the plaintiffs claiming through the said Premeshwari Bai could not claim any lease held by her and, therefore, the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and the suit deserves to be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. 4. The said application was contested by the plaintiffs and the learned trial court has found that the defendants had already filed written statement and the issues were also framed and after amendment was allowed under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. and amended written statement was also filed by defendants. In the suit, the lease Revision- 128/08 - Jagdish Kumar & Anr. Vs. Ramdev Chugh & Ors. : Order dt.7.7.08 2/3 deed executed in favour of the defendants on 20.2.2002 has been challenged by the plaintiffs. 5. The learned trial court found the suit to be not barred by provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. inasmuch as in the opinion of the learned trial court, it could not be held that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action. 6. Mr. M.C. Bhoot, learned counsel for the petitioner- defendants has contended that once in plaint, it was stated by the plaintiffs that the lease in favour of Smt. Parmeshwari Bai through whom the plaintiffs claim was valid only upto 8.8.1971, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 could be filed at any stage of the proceedings to save the precious time of the Court. Such suit does not deserve to be tried. 7. I have heard learned counsel and perused the record of the case including paras No.2 and 4 of the plaint. In para 4 of the plaint, the plaintiffs have stated that the lease in favour of Parmeshwari Bai which was registered in her favour was upto 1971 and thereafter also she continued to be lease holder and after her death on 23.10.1983, her successors plaintiffs, defendant No.1, defendants No.5 to 14 inherited those lease rights. 8. Since in the present case, the plaintiffs have claimed that Revision- 128/08 - Jagdish Kumar & Anr. Vs. Ramdev Chugh & Ors. : Order dt.7.7.08 3/3 the lease hold rights continued in favour of Parmeshwari Bai, it is an averment which is required to be proved and the plaintiff during trial of which appropriate issues may be framed by the learned trial court. The defendants have already filed written statement and are contesting the suit. It cannot prima facie be said that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action. In these facts and circumstances of the case, the rejection of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 is not found to be unjustified. 9. The revision petition is devoid of merit. The same is dismissed in limine. A copy of this order be sent to the plaintiff- respondent. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. item No.2 babulal/-