(1.) Petitioner-defendant has filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India impugning the order dated 31.10.2017 (Annexure P-6) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala, whereby his application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 read with section 151 CPC for rejection of plaint, was dismissed.
(2.) Respondent-plaintiffs had filed a suit for damages against the petitioner-defendant and his son Rajesh Goel. While the suit was pending, petitioner moved the aforesaid application for rejection of plaint, pleading therein that during the preparation of the case for cross-examination of witnesses, it came to the knowledge of petitioner-defendant that the place of marriage had deliberately not been mentioned by the respondent-plaintiffs so as to create jurisdiction before the court at Patiala. The plaintiffs are residents of Samana and the FIR regarding death of Saroj Rani was also registered at Samana, whereas petitioner-defendant is a permanent resident of Malerkotla. The respondent-plaintiffs have concealed the actual jurisdiction at Patiala despite the fact that no cause of action has accrued to them at Patiala. The courts at Samana and Malerkotla have got no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the case. Accordingly, petitioner moved an application under Order 7, Rule 11 read with section 151 CPC.
(3.) Reply to the said application was submitted by the respondent-plaintiffs and they have submitted that Saroj Rani had died at Patiala. Though the respondent-plaintiffs are permanent residents of Samana, but trial of the case was conducted at Patiala. However, petitioner has not caused any such objection in his application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC or in his amended written statement. It is at the stage when PW-Hazari Lal has already been cross-examined, his affidavit in evidence was filed in October 2015, and even the affidavit PW Manoj Kumar has also been filed but his cross examination has not yet been started, the application has been filed at a belated stage.