RASHMI KURRE Vs. ASHWANI KUMAR BHASKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on admission.

(2.) This Revision has been filed against the order dtd. 3/2/2024 passed by the Second Additional Judge to First Civil Judge Class-II, Bilaspur (CG) in Civil Suit No.44-B/23, whereby, the application preferred by the applicants/defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC read with Sec. 151 of the CPC, has been dismissed.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of the money to the tune of Rs.90,000.00 on the ground that the defendants entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff on 14/11/2017 for a consideration of Rs.8,50,000.00, out of which, Rs.5.00 lakhs was paid as earnest money through a cheque on 9/11/2017. It was agreed between the parties that the registered sale deed was to be executed after the demarcation and diversion and at that time, the remaining amount of Rs.3,50,000.00 was to be paid by the plaintiff. In the month of May 2022, it came to the knowledge of the plaintiff that the defendants had executed a sale-deed in favour of another person. Thereafter, the defendants returned the earnest money by giving a cheque of Rs.4,10,000.00 to the plaintiff and further promised him to return the balance amount of Rs.90,000.00 at the earliest. However, the said cheque issued in favour of the plantiff got dishonoured. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a Criminal Case against the defendants under Sec. 138 of the NIA Act and also filed a suit for recovery of the balance amount of Rs.90,000.00. In such suit, the petitioners/defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC read with Sec. 151 of the CPC raising the objection(s) that (i) it has wrongly mentioned in the plaint that defendants 2 & 3 are minors and the suit is filed through their mother (ii) the suit is time barred; and (iii) principle of res judicata attracts. The trial Court examined the aforesaid aspects and found that the grounds/objections raised by the petitioner does not exist under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Further, the cause of action arose in the month of May 2022, when it came to the notice of the plaintiff that the defendants had sold the subject property to another person, therefore, the suit was also filed within limitation and thereby, the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC.