LAWS(P&H)-2014-1-450

ALPESH Vs. KRISHAN KUMAR

Decided On January 13, 2014
Alpesh Appellant
V/S
KRISHAN KUMAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE contour of the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that, initially, respondent -plaintiffs No.1 to 16 Krishan Kumar and others (for brevity "the plaintiffs") have filed the civil suit (Annexure P1) against State of Haryana, its officers, petitioners Alpesh & others and proforma respondents (for short "the defendants") for a decree of declaration to the effect that the entries in the column of ownership and possession in the name of defendants No.4 to 14 and their forefathers in the relevant revenue (record of rights) are illegal, forged, result of fraud, in collusion with the revenue authorities, null, void and not binding on their rights, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction.

(2.) INSTEAD of contesting the suit of plaintiffs and filing the written statement on merits, the petitioner -defendants straightway filed the application (Annexure P2) for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, inter -alia, alleging therein that the plaintiffs have not supplied the copies of various documents referred to in the plaint, so much so, many of such documents referred to, have not been appended with it. In these circumstances, the plaint is liable to be rejected. It was pleaded that the suit filed by them is hopelessly time barred, civil court decree, release deed and mutation (mentioned therein the application) have already been acted upon in the revenue record. According to the contesting defendants that since the suit is not within time, so, it cannot proceed. On the basis of aforesaid grounds, they sought to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

(3.) SEQUELLY , the plaintiffs contested the claim of contesting defendants and filed the reply (Annexure P3), inter -alia, pleading certain preliminary objections of maintainability of the application, their locus standi and cause of action. It was claimed that as the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts and cannot be decided without recording the evidence of the parties by the trial Court, therefore, the application filed by the contesting defendants was liable to be rejected. It will not be out of place to mention here that the plaintiffs have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in it and prayed for its dismissal.