DEBANGSHU MONDAL Vs. MONOJ ROY & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length.

(2.) The propriety of the Order No. 22 dated 6th Dec., 2014 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baruipur, Dist. South 24- Parganas in Title Suit No. 282 of 2013 has been called in question. In the order impugned the learned Court below while disposing of the application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure held that he did not find sufficient grounds to reject the plaint in terms of the application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner at the very outset drew my attention to the averments of the plaint of Title Suit No. 282 of 2013 (Annexure-'A' to the application) and pointed out that the plaintiff/opposite party no. 1 herein filed a suit for partition of his undivided share in respect of a plot of land as referred to in the schedule of the plaint though he did not have any cause of action to file the same since his vendor has got demarcated portion in the plot in dispute clarifying the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 (a) of the Code, learned Counsel for the petitioner further drew my attention to the relevant paragraphs no. 6 and 7 of the plaint and categorically submitted that the plaintiff/opposite party no. 1 purchased a portion of land from his vendor, who acquired title in respect of a demarcated portion in R.S. Plot No. 232 which is described in the schedule of the plaint.