SANJEEV SOIN ALIAS SANJEEV Vs. MANJU AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 18.4.2015, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint, was dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondents No. 1 to 3 filed a suit against mother-in-law of respondent No. 1, namely, Kailashwati Soin (respondent No. 6) challenging the Will dated 31.1.1999 and civil court decree dated 14.11.2011 passed in the case titled as "Kailashwati Soin v. Rajiv Kumar and others". In the aforesaid suit, application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was filed by then defendantKailashwati Soin, which was rejected by the trial court. The order was impugned before this court by filing Civil Revision No. 3730 of 2014, which was disposed of vide order dated 16.12.2014 permitting the petitioner therein to withdraw the petition with liberty to raise all the issues before the trial court in the pending suit. The court below was also directed to dispose of the suit within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. There were technical defects in the suit as the parties were not impleaded and a separate suit for challenging the decree of the court was not maintainable. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed application for impleading Sanjeev son of Tilak Raj, Anita Dawar daughter of Shri Tilak Raj and Sarita Luthra daughter of Shri Tilak Raj, as defendants in the suit. The same was allowed by the learned court below vide order dated 22.1.2015. As despite the parties being impleaded, there was still no allegation or relief claimed against the newly added defendants, the plaint deserves to be rejected. In support of the plea, reliance was placed upon judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in T. Arivandandam v. T. V. Satyapal, 1977 AIR(SC) 2421 I.T.C. Limited v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and others, 1998 2 SCC 70; Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and others v. Assistant Charity Commissioner and others, 2004 3 SCC 137; Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Association, 2005 7 SCC 510; Ram Prakash Gupta v. Rajiv Kumar Gupta and others, 2007 10 SCC 59 and Abdul Gafur and another v. State of Uttarakhand and others, 2008 10 SCC 97 and judgment of Delhi High Court in Manmohan Singh v. Joginder Kaur, 2002 4 RCR(Civ) 157.

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The suit was filed by respondents No. 1 to 3 on 26.9.2012. Earlier, the application filed by the sole defendant-Kailashwati Soin for rejection of the plaint was dismissed by the trial court. The order was impugned by filing Civil Revision No. 3730 of 2014, which was disposed of on 16.12.2014. The same is extracted below: