KAUSHAL KISHORE DUBEY Vs. SHIVRAM MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision has been preferred by defendants No. 1 and 2 under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') by questioning the order dated 13/11/2017 passed by the Additional District Judge, Dantewada, District South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.19-A/2014, by which, the trial Court has rejected the application filed by defendant No. 2 under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC.

(2.) The undisputed facts of the case, are that, the plaintiff Shivram Mishra (since deceased now represented by his legal representatives) has instituted a suit claiming declaration that three registered deeds of sale, all executed on 12/08/1999, in favour of defendants No. 2 to 4 be declared as null and void and also for confirmation of their possession and injunction by submitting inter alia that the alleged sales were executed by defendant No. 1, namely, Kaushal Kishore Dubey as his power of attorney holder without following the terms and conditions stipulated in the said power of attorney. It is pleaded further in the plaint that the alleged power of attorney was executed on 14/11/1995 and the same was cancelled on 19/08/1998, therefore, defendant No. 1 at the relevant time was not competent to execute the registered deeds of sale as such in favour of the defendants. It is pleaded further that since the defendants are claiming their right, title and interest by way of the alleged sales, therefore, the plaintiff has been constrained to file the suit in the instant nature, instituted on 19/07/2000.

(3.) Upon receiving the summons of the aforesaid suit, defendants have submitted their written statements. After filing the written statements, an application enumerated under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC has been made by defendant No. 2 on 13/11/2017 praying for rejection of the plaint as it was filed without impleading the Deputy Registrar, Dantewada as a party defendant and without following the procedure prescribed under Section 80 of CPC, therefore, the suit as framed and instituted deserves to be rejected.