GOVIND NARAYAN Vs. SHRI BAHETI DHARMSHALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has beseeched to quash and setaside the order dated 31 st October, 2007, whereby the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Kishangarh, Ajmer dismissed the application filed by the defendant-petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 (D) CPC.

(2.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is noticed that the defendantpetitioner moved the application under Order 7 Rule 11(D) of CPC for dismissing the plaint on the ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to hear the tenancy matters, but the learned trial court dismissed the application observing that the application was filed by the defendant-petitioner with a view to procrastinate the trial of the suit.

(3.) At the very out-set, it is relevant to mention that the Hon'ble Apex Court in plethora of cases has consistently held that the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution must be sparingly exercised to correct errors of jurisdiction and the like, but not to upset pure findings of fact. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also held that the High Court should not interfere with the order of the inferior court, unless the same is found to be perverse or not based on any material or it results in manifesting injustice.