AMOL @ AJAY Vs. RAJENDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocates for the parties.

(2.) The instant civil revision application has been preferred by the applicants, challenging the order dtd. 23/4/2025, passed by 20th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur, below Exhibit 36, in Regular Civil Suit No.550 of 2024. By the said order, the trial court has rejected the application preferred by the defendants (applicants herein), under Order VII Rule 11(a) and 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "CPC ").

(3.) The suit has been instituted by the respondents (original plaintiffs) against the applicants (original defendants) seeking declaration and perpetual as well as mandatory injunction. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their original status before the trial court for the sake of brevity. The defendants had filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and 11(d) of CPC, seeking rejection of plaint on various grounds. The contentions of the defendants are that the plaint does not disclose cause of action, so also the suit is barred by law under the provisions of Sec. 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, since the plaintiffs have merely sought a negative declaration without seeking declaration of their title or possession. It is their further contention that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The trial court, after hearing the learned Advocates for both the sides, rejected the application vide impugned order dtd. 23/4/2025. According to the applicants, the impugned order is ex facie erroneous, perverse and therefore, liable to be quashed and set-aside.