^ (• ^^ ...-^y ^•yy €^.^ ^<^° IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUREAT BIIASFUR Civil Revision No._ APPLICANT : JE>efendoiit No. 1 ./2006 Ramesh Chandravanshl, 8/ o Shri Latel Chandravaashly Aged about 38 years, R/o Civil Liaes, Kawardhay Tahsfl- Kawrardha, District- Kabirdham (C.G.). -Versu»~ RESPONDENT /,:^1. JuthelSingh» S/oDukhuSingh, untiff RESPONDENT ^Defendaat No.2 ^ Aged aboiit 60 years^ R/o Gurugovbid Siagh, Ward No.2, P.S. aiid Tahsil- Kawardha, District- Kabirdham (C.G.). 2. State of Chhattisgarh» through CoUector, District- Kabirdham (C.Q.). d[/ [P\^ ^IVJL RKVI8ION UHDER 8BCTION USOF THE CODB ^ ^^^> OF CIVIL PROCBDURE7 XI-HC-22 75T ^ii-qici^, <$Tny<i<o, (c|<rtl'M^< 311^1 M?ich . C.R.^o- .g^^ .-.-.'.^ .- .•'.':V: . . .< .7.. . . ^ 200 ^ +11^^1 $h+<|cb 3TI^T^)T ^J4)3:n^T $h^icb^f?cT 3T1^T^<TTW^T 02/02/2007 Shii V.C. Ottalwar, counsel for Shri P.P. Sahu, counsel for non-| SIm Akhil Agrawal, Panel Lav\7j 4)Nf<rl41^ ^H(vlT^teuA<Rl^K ^3:rf^T3T1^T the applicant/defendant No.l. applicantNo. 1. t'er for the State/non-applicant No. 2. Leamed counsel for the parties |)ray that this Civil Revision may be fmally heard today and disposed of. Accordingly, the Civil Revision| Applicant/defendant No. 1 is a| by Civil Judge, Class-II, Kabii'dham ii| application filed by the applicant/def^ A/2005 in the Court of Civil Judge, permanent mjunction. It vvas pleaded t| grant of a permanent lease over the before the State Govermnent. Accord applicant/'defendant started constmcti^ gave him the cause of action to file a| entitled to get the suit land on perman^ by the defendant over the suit land wa| by a permanent injunction from doii^ Although, the State Govemment ^ respondent/'plaintiff specifically pleade| the State Govermiient. An application by the defendant/applicant alleging tha] plamtiff and therefore, the plamt was 1| ofC.P.C. was fmatly heard today. ^grieved by order dated 13.3.2006 passed Civil Suit No. 172-A/2005 whereby the ^ndant No. 1 under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. was dismissed. Brieffacts are that the respondsjnt No. 1/plamtiff filed Civil Suit No. 172- IClass-II, Kabirdham for declaration and |iat the respondent//plamtiffhad applied for ^uit land which application was pendmg ^ing to the plaintiff, on 14.12.2005, the |n of the house over the suit land which 1 suit for declaration that the plaintiff was ^nt lease, that the constmction being done ^ illegal and also to restrain the defendant |g constmction work over the suit land. |as impleaded as a formal pa^, yet |1 that no relief was being claimed against Iwas filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. no cause ofaction arose m favour ofthe |able to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 XI-HC-22 ^l^dl $h+<icb ^cT ^i^icn^, ^Tfl^Ko, fsKriK-iy ;?1 q^l<ft ^^-C.^,.<JP..^.^....,^ 200€. 3T[^T^)T f^t^^n^T $b^i<t>^?cT T.' ^' Kw" '^ 3TT^?T ?^<TT^K ^rf?cT -Si Gbi^tci41Ti ^ i^<nT ^* te^t <RI^K ^3Tf^:T3TT^T The respondent/plaintiff opposjed the application. Leamed Civil Judge, Class-II, Kabirdham rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. merely on the ground that upon a plaii^ reading of the plaint, it appears bona fide that cause ofaction arose m favour oft| Havmg heard rival contention^ impugned order is patently illegal, refl(| mind to the pleadmgs and is liable t^ ascertainmg whether cause of action aj Civil Suit, the allegation in the plaiil disputed that permanent lease ofthe su| his application still pendmg before th| matter, the State Govemment and constmction, if any, by the defendant be said to have arisen in favour ofthd Suit' against the defendant/applicant. plaint shdll be liable to rejection wher^ tie plamtiff. , I am of the considered opinion that the ?cts complete lack of application ofjudicial 5 be set aside. It is well settled that for :ose in favour of the plaintiff for filing the it alone are to b©looked into. It is not It land has not been granted to the plamtiff, ? State Govemment. In that view of the not the plaintiff was aggrieved by the to suit land. No cause of action could thus non-applicant/plamtiff for filing the Civil ^ plnder Order 7^ sub clause*(a^Rule 11, the it does not disclose a cause of action. No cause ofaction arose in favour ofthe p|laintifFfor filing a suit and claimmg reliefs as mentioned in the plaint. The plaint Order 7 Rule 11 ofthe C.P.C. In that view of the matter, the order dated 13.3.2006 passed by the In view ofabove, M.(C).P. No ^vas thus clearly liable to be rejectcd under |Civil Revision is allowed. The impugned pivil Judge, Class-II, Kabirdham in Civil Suit No. 172-A/2005 is set aside. Plaii-{t m Civil Suit No. 172-A/2005 is rejected. 507/2006 for stay, I.A. No. 1138/2006 for urgent hearing and I.A. No.2325/20^6 for hearing the case out of tum stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to cos?ts. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge \ - ^.—./ \