GYOKI MASAJUKI MAEDA Vs. AISHA CONSTRUCTIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Revision Application against the Order dated 12th November, 1997, passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, in Regular Civil Suit No. 155/96/D. By the impugned Order, the Trial Court has rejected the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C., on two grounds namely the suit is barred under Section 4 of Benami Transactions Act, 1988 (hereinafter called the said Act) and that the Plaintiff has violated the provisions of Section 31 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter called FERA).

(2.) AT the outset, the learned Advocate appearing for the Respondents fairly conceded that the plaint could not have been rejected in exercise of powers under Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C. in the case in hand on the ground of violation of provisions of Section 31 of FERA and that the point regarding such violation of the provisions of FERA can be considered only at the final disposal of the suit. Therefore, as far as the order pertains to the rejection of the plaint on the ground of violation of provisions of FERA, the same can be safely set aside by consent of the parties, apart from the fact that the question of violation of provisions contained in Section 31 of FERA can be decided only on the basis of evidence produced by the parties and not merely on the basis of pleadings in the plaint. Being so, the impugned Order, so far as it relates to the rejection of the plaint on the ground of violation of Section 31 of FERA, cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.

(3.) THE Petitioner had filed the said suit for declaration that the Sale Deed dated 13th December, 1995, executed by the Responded No. 2 claiming to represent the Indo -Japan Education Society as the vendors in favour of Defendant No. 1 and registered under No. 220/26 on 31st January, 1996, in the Office of Sub -Registrar of Bardez at Mapusa to be declared null and void and further for direction to the Sub -Registrar not to register the same, as well as for injunction against the Respondents to restrain them from carrying out any construction and from interfering in any manner in the suit property including the residential bungalow, garage and compound wall of the Petitioner situated in the suit property.