GRAM PANCHAYAT MUNGTHALA Vs. BAHADUR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent has raised an objection that this writ petition is not maintainable against the impugned order dt. 07.04.2010 whereby an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was rejected. There is strength in the argument of learned counsel for the respondent. Therefore, this writ petition is hereby treated as revision petition.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent submits that order was passed on 07.04.2010 and near about two and half years have passed and there is no stay operating in this case, so also, the objection was raised by the petitioner for providing opportunity after framing issue in the trial Court, therefore, at this stage, the order impugned does not require any interference because for the purpose of deciding the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the plaint is required to be seen and according to the suit filed by the respondent plaintiff, he has not prayed for compliance of any provision enumerated in the Act. It is also worthwhile to observe that at the time of deciding the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, no reply or the grounds raised in the reply can be considered and trial Court is required to decide only on the basis of the pleadings of the plaint. In view of above, I see no reason to interfere in this revision petition. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed.