ARUN VIJAY SATI Vs. DINESH CHANDRA THAPLIYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Before answering the arguments, as it has been extended by the learned Senior Counsel for the revisionist, this Court feels it apt to deal with the circumstances, under which the impugned order dtd. 5/6/2022, as it has been rendered in Civil Suit No. 1 of 2017, Dinesh Chandra Thapliyal and Another Vs. Ramesh Chandra Thapliyal and Another, was rendered by the Court below, whereby the two issues being issue No. 8, with regard to the implications of Sec. 11 of the CPC, and the issue No. 9 with regard to attracting the bar of institution of the proceedings of Suit under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, has been answered against the defendants/revisionist by the impugned order, which is under challenge.

(2.) The factual backdrop of the instant case, which requires consideration is, that earlier a Civil Suit, being Civil Suit No. 41 of 1992, Ramesh Chandra Thapliyal Vs. Smt. Deveswari Devi and others, was instituted before the Court of Civil Judge, Pauri Garhwal, by invoking the provisions contained under Sec. 34 and 38 of the Specific Relief Act, wherein the "subject matter", which has been argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the revisionist, as if the subject matter would be the "property involved" i.e. the land lying in village Srikot, Ganganali, Patti Katulsyun khatauni khata No. 27, having 6 Nali 9 Mutthi of village Koteshwar, the land lying in khata No. 8 out of which 15 Nalis lies in village Kothad, Katulsyun in khasra No. 7/8, 4 Nali 5 Mutthi and also that of the land lying in khata No. 45 of an area of 14 nali 3 mutthi of land, out of the aforesaid 5 khata Nos. ; total 44 nali 2 mutthi of land were the subject matter in dispute in a Suit for the grant of decree of apportionment of shares, as instituted before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) on 8/6/1992. If the principal relief, which was sought in the said Suit is taken into consideration, which is extracted hereunder; it reads as under:-

(3.) In fact, the nature of relief, which was modulated there in the said Suit of 1992, was a declaration in relation to the right, which was said to have been claimed to have devolved to the extent of 1/5th share of a disputed property, and a decree of declaration was also sought as against the defendants therein the said suit. Apart from it, a declaration was also sought to the effect that they may be declared as to be the owners of the property in question which was disputed in the suit.