UDAY KAUSHISH Vs. SANJAY KAUSHISH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. D.C. Kaushish, Defendant 1, Mr. Uday Kaushish and Ajaya Kaushish Defendants 2 and 3 and Mrs. Shiela Kaushish defendant No.4 in the suit No. 1176/86 have filed appeal Nos. 25/92, 221/91, and 222/91 respectively against the order passed in IA Nos 3888/86 and 5000/86 under Order 7 Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code for rejection of the plaint.

(2.) The Respondent in the Appeal Mr. Sanjay Kaushish filed the suit for partition (Suit No. 1176/86) and in the plaint he has claimed relief referring to various proceedings earlier passed during his minority and has sought the reliefs treating them as not being binding on him. The learned Single Judge of this Court who has dealt with the Interlocutory Applications had considered the matter at length and has come to the conclusion that no case had been made out by the defendants for the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code.

(3.) The learned Single Judge had come to the conclusion for the purpose of considering the Application under Order VII and Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code that the case of the plaintiff clearly is that a fraud has been practised in obtaining the decree showing the partition of the properties. As the said decree had been obtained when he was a minor and he came to know about the decree only in 1984 and that in fact, no partition of the properties ever took place actually. On the basis of the averments as have been made in the plaint, the question is whether it can be said that the suit for partition is not maintainable because the decree has been already obtained in that respect. The question deserves to be answered in negative. Nothing is shown or brought to our notice that has the viewed taken by the learned Single Judge is erroneous. The order of the learned Single Judge is reported in Sanjay Kaushish Vs. D.C. Kaushish and Ors. AIR 1992 Delhi 118.