DILIP BHATTACHARYA Vs. RATAN KUMAR SEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO revisional applications have been filed by the defendants/petitioners for challenging two orders passed by the Learned Trial Judge in the plaintiffs suit for declaration of his tenancy right, recovery of possession and damages and also for permanent injunction. By an order dated 20th September, 2006, the defendants application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code was rejected on contest. The said order is the subject matter of challenge in civil revisional application being C.O. No. 3755 of 2007.

(2.) BY subsequent order dated 23-02-2010, the plaintiffs application for amendment of plaint was allowed by the Learned Trail Judge. The said order is under challenge in Civil Revisional application being C.O. No. 1100 of 2010. Since both the applications are, to some extent, related to each other, both the applications are taken up for hearing together.

(3.) LET me now consider the merit of the other revisional application being C.O. No. 3577 of 2007 in the context of the above discussion. Since it is settled law that while considering the defendants application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court cannot consider any other statement save and except the pleadings made out by the plaintiffs in the plaint for ascertaining attraction of the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, this Court will restrict its consideration with regard to the plaint pleadings only.