RAJEEV GUPTA Vs. SWATANTRATA SANGRAM SENANI ASHRIT SANGATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the defendant-petitioner for the following relief:

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondents instituted Original Suit No. 399 of 2021 (Swatantra Sangram Senani Ashrit Sangthan through President- Vishwa Mitra Tandon and 2 others Vs. Rajeev Gupta) for the relief that defendant be restrained from taking possession and raising construction over the land in dispute belonging to the plaintiffs and also that decree passed in O.S. No. 287 of 2020 (Rajeev Gupta Vs. Karan Verma) dtd. 3/11/2020 be declared void. Defendant-petitioner appeared in the suit and moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit and the suit is also barred by Sec. 38 read with Sec. 41 (J) of Specific Relief Act, 1967. The aforesaid application filed by the petitioner was rejected by the trial court by judgment and order dtd. 4/12/2023. Against the judgment and order dtd. 4/12/2023 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pilibhit, Civil Revision No. 94 of 2023 was filed by the defendant-petitioner and the same had also been dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.1 Pilibhit by its judgment and order dtd. 27/2/2024. Hence present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that plaintiffs have no cause of action and no locus standi to file the present suit. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit as filed by the plaintiff is barred under Sec. 38 and 41 (J) of the Specific Relief Act. It is next contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that second relief claimed by the plaintiff that the compromise judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 287 of 2020 (Rajeev Gupta Vs. Karan Verma) dtd. 3/11/2020 be declared void is hit by provisions of Order 23 Rule 3-A of the C.P.C. Courts below have rejected the application filed by the petitioner erroneously without considering the law as cited by the petitioner before the court below.