t CI'- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CIVIL REVISION N0. 9^ OF 2009 P'?snrt| '^ ^ ss^; APPLICANT Defendant No.l -^l^:^ ^S^f" ?.»-^»^^" ^^'^^ \^"" Vs NON-APPLICANT Plaintiff Defendant No.2. Chandrika Sonkar, son of Shri Khelan Sonkar, aged about 51 years, resident of Ramkund, presently at Behind Radha Krishan Mandir, Samta Colony, Raipur, Tehsil <& bistrict Raipur. 1. Vinod Agrawal, son of Late ChhQganlal Ji Agrawal, aged about45 years, resident of Ramsagarpara, Raipur, Tehsil & District Raipur. 2. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Collector, Raipur. CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CObE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. 1908 T- ^y XI-HC—78 ^n^i^T'f^fN' • "^^ ^I^? ^^i<^' ^ T / 'T^r ^ii^Kn^^ ^nl^^Ko, f®i<ni<rj^< C.Ps. ^^5/^J HW^i ^^^^...................................................^^ ^QQ ^n^i'^^R' (^3^?) ^^TTW ^Hft^ 3^T SB: HON. SHRI JUSTICB N.1ti 11-11-2009 ^>Psrf^ft^ 'RTR^Tf ^ 'fe^' <f^^!< ^>3?RR3TT^i .AGARWAL Shri B.P. Sharma, Ad^ocate, for fhe applicant. Sushri Sangeeta Mish^a, Panel Lawyer, for the State. Heard on application J On due consideration, for taking document on record. fhe application is allowed and the document annexed therewilBi is taken on record. Heard on admission. This revision arises oij in Civil Suit No. 15-A/20) Judge, Raipur. The facts briefly state(|l are as under:- 2. The applicant entered] Chitthi) with regard Lt oforder dated 9-10-2009 passed )6 by fhe Ist Additional Dlstnet into an agreement of sale (Bayana to land Khasra No. 870/1 area 0.186 hectare situat^d at vills^e Chirholdih, Raipur, Tehsil and District Ra|ipiir with the plaintiff/ respondent herein for a total consl deration of Rs. 7 lacs and received Rs. 40,000/- as ^dvance (Document fEled in fhe petition). Later on, ft^e plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of fhe a^reement against the petitioner.It appears from fhe or4er impugned that on an anofher application under Or^ler 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. read with Section 151, filed b|y the petitioner, the trial court + ^ '5^? ^S^I^, ^r<)^41^7 [oi^{<Hy tllWHII'W^K' -^200 W^T^T^FTN? ^?T ^l^?l iETSlN? bNrf»( ^ff^F 1q^F ('^stgp^) 'P^TW^fNW^T ^TOf^JN N?NdT '^ fe^l 'd^f^T? ^a^f^^l^? dtrected the plamljtff to impleaded the State as a party and thereupon th^ State was impleaded as defendant No. 2/respondenl} No.2. The petitioner ffled written statement. The trial Court |framed issues including the issue regarding validity ^t agreement to sale. The matter was then fixed for evi^ence. At this stage, the plaintiff ffled the instant applic^tion imder Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. which was dismis^ed by fhe Court below vide impugnied order. 4. Shri B.P. Sharmri|, leamed counsel for the petitioner relying on fhe d^cision of the Supreme Court in T^ Arivandandam i T.V. Satvaoal aad smother reported in 1977 STPL (LE) 8662 SC and Pitasibai -v- Rataalal reported in 1990 ISTPL (LE) 15643 SC submitted fhat j when no cause o^ action is diselosed or if fhe suit is found fiivolous or vexatiou^, then the trial Oourt has ample power to dismiss the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 1 of C.P.C. at any stage. Havmg heard leajmed coiinsel for the petitioner and having perused ftle tmpu^ied order, I do not find any substance in the i-evision. It cannot be disputed fhat if ^.-^^iTq ^^-^ ^^i-^KS^^T^riTcf—!-S/95—11 /2008—--1,00,009. XI-HC—78 ^T^? ^r 'R^i^ n^T'B^T^TRfe' t ^ 'TST T<ii<i4i<nq, %>-al^<i<o, f®ldl'ylj,< ^llNCTi CT»^§<^""""""""""""""""""""""""""^200 ^TT^T 77^^> ('^rf^^l) i^nw^ft^^T^i 6. wilth belo|ngs on the face, fhe suit| filed wifhout disclo^ certainly the Court such ground at anj instant case, fhe agreement of sale land in dispute 40,000/- as advancj that on fhe face, the is vexatious and frivcl cause of action. agreement of sale is| Court by recording therefor in the suit. In view ofthe above, ] aay jurisdictional is hereby dismissed. j Court shaU decidej preferably within a influenced by any this order. The ^T^fepft^ 'STR^ff ^ "fe^ 'tf^^H ^T^tiHH^^i is found vexatious or j&ivolous or »^ing any cause of actipn, tiien Ijias ample power to dismiss it on r stage, but indlsputably, in the Ipetitioner himself entered into ftie plaintiff stating in It that the to him and also received Rs. and fherefore, it cannot be said t)laintiff has instituted a suit wNch ^ous suit or without disclosing any question whether or not the void is to be decided by the trial |ts finding upon (he issue fi'amed erfor Isince the order does not suffer from r(x>r, the revision deserves to be and iHowever, it is directed ftot the trial the suit as early as possible |)eriod of sbi monfhs wifhout being 4pinion express^l by this Coi.irt in Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge \-