MANJU Vs. KAILASHWATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS identical questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, I propose to decide CR No. 6005 of 2013 titled as "Manju v. Smt. Kailashwati & Ors." (for brevity "the 1st case") and CR No. 1424 of 2014 titled as "Kailashwati v. Manju & Ors." (for short "the 2nd case"), arising out of the same impugned order between the same parties, by virtue of this common decision, in order to avoid the repetition. The matrix of the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant revision petitions and emanating from the record, is that, initially, plaintiffs Manju widow of, Halley son of and Heena daughter, of Rajiv son of Tilak Raj (for brevity "the plaintiffs"), have instituted the civil suit (Annexure P1 in 1st case) and (Annexure P2 in 2nd case), for a decree of declaration to the effect that the Will dated 31.1.1999 and civil Court decree dated 14.11.2011 passed in civil suit No. 353 of 2011 titled as "Kailashwati Soin v. Rajiv Kumar and others, are illegal, null, void and not operative on their rights, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining defendant Kailashwati Soin widow of Tilak Raj (in short "the defendant"), from dispossessing them and alienating the suit property in any manner. The defendant contested the -claim of plaintiffs, filed the written statement, stoutly denied all the allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

(2.) DURING the pendency of the suit, the defendant has moved an application (Annexure P2 in 1st case) and (Annexure P4 in 2nd case) for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC. The plaintiffs refuted her prayer, filed the reply, strongly denied all the allegations contained in the application and prayed for its dismissal.

(3.) AGGRIEVED thereby, plaintiff No. 1 and defendant have preferred their respective revision petitions, invoking the superintendence jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.