DEVENDER Vs. SAVITA JINDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant No.8 Shri Ramesh Chandra Aggarwal and defendant No.18 Shri Shyam Sunder Kanoria in their respective applications have sought for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC.

(2.) It is submitted in the applications that the plaintiff has filed a suit for Declaration, Cancellation of Documents and Injunction. The respective defendants have already filed their detailed Written Statement on record. The defendant No.8 has alleged that the plaintiff has filed the present Suit after fifteen years of the sale of the suit property to defendant No.8 on the ground that the suit land is ancestral and the respective fathers of the defendants had no right to sell the same.

(3.) It is submitted that in the similarly filed suits bearing Nos. CS(OS)2287/2009 tiled as Om Prakash and Ors. vs. Savita Jindal and Ors. and in CS(OS) No.1521/09 titled Shishpal and Another vs. Savita Jindal and Ors. the plaintiffs have been directed to file the appropriate Court Fee. The defendants and the relief sought in the above mentioned Suits are similar in nature and the plaintiffs are bound to pay the deficient Court Fee as ordered in CS(OS)2287/2009. It is further asserted that all these Suits are being represented by one lawyer on behalf of the villagers and the plaintiffs in all these suits are claiming themselves to be co-parceners in respect of the suit land.