SIDDHARTHA RAY Vs. NARINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the petitioner/defendant has challenged order dated 18.10.2017 (Annexure P-5), passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge-II, Dharamshala, District Kangra in CMA No. 37 of 2017 in Civil Suit No. 33 of 2017, vide which, an application filed by the present petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of plaint, has been dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the petition are as under:

(3.) The case of plaintiff, in brief, is that he is owner in possession of the suit land. Defendant, who was a permanent resident of Kolkata (West Bengal) used to visit Dharamkot. Plaintiff is running a Home Stay over the suit land. He was approached by the defendant in the month of June, 2016 with the intention of taking one room with attached bathroom in the said Home Stay. Defendant took the said accommodation from the plaintiff for a tariff of Rs.300.00 per day and stayed there for about one month and thereafter left the place. Afterwards, whenever defendant visited Dharamkot, he used to stay in the Home Stay of the plaintiff. When defendant again visited Dharamkot in Sept. 2016 and stayed in the accommodation of plaintiff, he allured the plaintiff that if certain construction was added on the suit land, the same can increase the income of the plaintiff. Plaintiff being a simple villager, was convinced by what defendant stated. He was totally brain washed by the defendant, who even did not allow the plaintiff to consult his family members. Defendant got a site plan prepared and also got e-stamp paper for an amount of Rs.10,000.00 without the knowledge of the plaintiff. Plaintiff believing the defendant, went with him to the office of Sub-Registrar, Dharamshala alongwith witnesses, where he was made to sign a lease deed dated 07.10.2016 without going through the contents of the same. He was convinced by the defendant that they were not supposed to disclose the details of the lease deed. After execution of the same, defendant started raising construction over the suit land in a haphazard manner with an intent of grabing the suit land. Plaintiff and his family members requested the defendant not to do so. Plaintiff also requested the defendant that no construction can be carried out without getting the plan properly sanctioned, however, defendant did not pay any heed to the request of the plaintiff. Electricity Department also issued a notice dated 21.12.2016 directing not to raise any construction over the suit land, as proposed construction of the building underneath LT line was in contravention of the provisions of Indian Electricity Rule, 1956 and was a punishable offence. After receipt of the notice from the Electricity Department, construction work undertaken at the instance of defendant was stopped when plaintiff through his mother Smt. Misro Devi filed an application in Police Station Mcleodganj. As per the plaintiff, he immediately cancelled/revoked the lease deed vide deed of revocation dated 22.12.2016. Defendant, on the basis of the alleged lease deed, was trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the peaceful possession over the suit land and in this background, the suit stood filed praying for the reliefs already enumerated hereinabove.