SANAT KHATWANI Vs. MUNNI LAL SENDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Default pointed out by the office is ignored.

(2.) This Revision has been filed by the applicant/defendant being aggrieved with the order dtd. 13/9/2023 passed by the Sixth Civil Judge Class-II, Durg (CG) in Civil Suit No.Class-A 6399/2013, whereby, the application preferred by him under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, was dismissed.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed a Civil Suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction, recovery of possession of the house after eviction from the mud hut, partition and separate possession and in aggregate, valued the suit for such relief for Rs.6700.00. In such suit, the applicant/defendant has filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC raising a ground therein that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 had already lost his right in his ancestral property in view of the fact that he had been adopted by late Heeralal Shindey. It is also stated in the application that the plaintiff also got mutated the name of himself and the name of his adopted father in the revenue record and subsequently, executed a registered sale-deed on 22/12/1986. Further, before filing of the suit only i.e. Civil Suit No.245A/1986 (Bholanath Shindey Vs. Chunni lal Shindey and others) by Bholanath Shindey, who was the father of the plaintiff, with his consent, the plaintiff was adopted by late Heeralal Shindey. Moreover, since the suit is time barred and proper valuation has also not been made, the plaint should be rejected on the ground of limitation also. However, by the impugned order, the applicant's application was dismissed. Hence, this revision.