AAS MOHAMAD & ANOTHER Vs. SARFRAJ & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision is directed against the impugned order, whereby the application at the instance of the petitioner-defendants filed by invoking the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint, has been declined.

(2.) On the contrary, Mr.Rajesh Lamba, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5 submits that for deciding/adjudication of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only the averments in the plaint have to be seen. At the best, the documents enclosed with the plaint can be seen. However, as per the copy of the plaint (Annexure P-1), the claim does not fall in the category of clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 CPC. The detailed evidence is required to be led as the mixed question of law and fact is involved and, thus, prays for dismissal of the revision petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book.

(3.) Accordingly, the petitioner-defendants are directed to file the written statement and take up all possible objections, including the objection of res judicata and thereafter, after completion of the pleadings, the trial Court shall frame the issues, including the issue of res judicata and try the same as preliminary issue by affording two-two effective opportunities to the parties to the lis and consequential effect would be seen only after the decision.