RAV AJAY PRATAP SINGH YADAV Vs. GURUCHARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 07.04.2018 passed by the trial Court rejecting the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC the applicants/defendants have preferred this revision. On perusal of the order impugned, it is apparent that the trial Court rejected such application on the pretext that the objection as raised may be permitted to raise in the written statement and after framing issues then it can be decided.

(2.) After hearing learned counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion objection as raised by the defendants in the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC is required to be seen in the context of the pleadings of the plaint and adjudication of the objections by evidence be permitted to raise in written statement. However, it is the duty of the trial Court to decide the objections raised as per Order 7, Rule 11 CPC on merit either allowing the application or rejecting the same. But without considering the objections on merit rejected the application which is not permissible, therefore, the order impugned stands set aside, so far as, it relates to rejection of application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC.

(3.) In view of aforesaid, this petition is hereby allowed in part and order impugned is set aside so far as it relates to rejection of the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. Trial Court is directed to restore the application filed by the defendants and decide the same in accordance with law considering the objections and pleadings made in the plaint and documents filed by the counsel for the plaintiffs and defendant with the application. Accordingly, the revision stands disposed of.