CHINTAMANI Vs. AJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) No one appears for the respondents despite issuance of SPC.

(2.) The instant revision under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC ') assails the order dtd. 4/10/2017 (Annexure A/1) passed by the Sixth Civil Judge, Class-I, Khandwa in Civil Suit No.12-A/2015, whereby the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC filed by the petitioners/defendants has been rejected.

(3.) The brief facts leading to filing of this case are that the respondents/plaintiffs have filed a suit seeking relief(s) of declaration of title and permanent injunction. In para 2 of the plaint it has been pleaded by the respondents/plaintiffs that the property detailed as Schedule 'A ' was purchased by late Anokhilal (father of the respondents/plaintiffs and defendant No.2/petitioner No.2 and husband of defendant No.1/petitioner No.1) vide registered sale deed dtd. 20/10/1984 in the name of his wife (defendant No.1) out of love and affection but entire sale consideration was paid by late Anokhilal. Thus, the respondents/plaintiffs have claimed the right over the said property. Since the suit has been filed in respect of benami transaction, the same is admittedly barred by Sec. 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (for short 'Act'); therefore, the petitioners/defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC seeking dismissal of the suit as barred by Sec. 4 of the Act. Respondents/plaintiffs filed the reply and opposed the prayer. However, the trial Court vide order dtd. 4/10/2017 rejected the application holding that the suit is saved by Sec. 3(2) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the petitioners/defendants have challenged the order inter alia on various grounds.