BHAG SINGH Vs. AMAR SINGH BHELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a civil revision and has been directed against the order dated 17.12.1998 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, who dismissed the application of the petitioner under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC, for the rejection of the plaint. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner :-

(2.) AMAR Singh Bhela, plaintiff (now respondent) filed a suit for declaration that the property in dispute bearing No. B-XX-530/2, situated at Ludhiana, is a joint Hindu family coparcenary property and the defendant No. 1 and others have no right to alienate the same except for legal and family necessity and for restraining the defendants, particularly defendant No. 1, from acting in any manner adverse to the interest of the plaintiff. An application was moved under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC that such a suit is bared under the provisions of under Order 7, Rule 11(d), CPC. The learned Sub Judge dismissed the application, for the reasons given in paras 5 to 8 of the impugned order, which read as under :-

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner relies upon under Order 7, Rule 11(j), CPC and submits that earlier Amar Singh Bhela, plaintiff-respondent No. 1, filed a suit for injunction and that suit was dismissed for want of prosecution because the stay was not granted by the trial Court. The counsel submitted that this fact has not been disclosed in the present plaint and it was mandatory on the part of the respondent to narrate this fact and if this fact is not narrated the consequences are very fatal and such a plaint is liable to be rejected by virtue of under Order 7, Rule 11(d), CPC, which provides that when the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law, the same shall be rejected. In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon AIR 1987 (Ph. and Hr.) 34, AIR 1988 SC 576 and AIR 1987 (Raj.) 205. Incidently, these authorities were also relied by the petitioner before the trial Court.