PRADEEP RAJWAL Vs. YOG RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against order dtd. 20/11/2021 passed by the Court of learned 2nd Civil Subordinate Judge (Passenger Tax, Shops and Estt. Act), Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the 'trial court') by virtue of which the application filed by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) for rejection of plaint, has been rejected.

(2.) The factual matrix of the controversy in hand is that the respondent along with others had earlier filed a suit for declaration, declaring the judgment and decree dtd. 20/9/2016 passed by the court of learned City Judge Jammu in case, titled, 'Pradeep Rajwal and anr. vs Nemo' as illegal, nullity and inoperative and not binding upon anyone, which was assigned to the trial court by the Principal District Judge, Jammu. It is stated that at the time of filing of the suit, the respondent was having the knowledge of revocation of Trust Deed, which was registered on 11/2/2016 by the learned Sub Registrar, 3rd Additional Munsiff, Jammu but the respondent did not challenge the revocation of the Trust Deed in the earlier suit filed by them while throwing a challenge to the judgment and decree dtd. 20/9/2016 and rather filed another suit thereby challenging the revocation deed dtd. 11/2/2016 in respect of revocation of the trust. The petitioners filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code on the ground that the suit was barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code as the respondent did not challenge the revocation of Trust Deed dtd. 11/2/2016 in the earlier suit preferred by him along with others, whereby he had challenged the judgment and decree dtd. 20/9/2016 passed by the Court of learned City Judge, Jammu. The respondent filed the response and after considering the rival contentions of the parties, the learned trial court dismissed the application preferred by the petitioners.

(3.) The respondent has filed the response to the revision petition stating therein that the judgment and decree dtd. 20/9/2016 passed in suit, titled, 'Pradeep Rajwal and anr. vs Nemo' was challenged by the respondent when it came to the knowledge of the respondent. It is further stated that the learned trial court has rightly dismissed the application of the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code as only the averments made in the plaint are required to be looked into. Besides, the factual aspects of the case have also been narrated, which may not be relevant for the settlement of the present controversy.