NATHU RAM SETH Vs. POONAM SETH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 4.9.2009 passed by the Addl. District. Judge, (FT) No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the "Trial Court") in Civil suit No. 35/2008, whereby the Trial Court has rejected the application of the petitioner filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

(2.) IT has been sought to be submitted by learned counsel Mr. D.D. Patodia for the petitioner that the petitioner is a grand -father of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and father in law of respondent No. 1 and that the said respondents have no right in the suit property. According to him, no cause of action had arisen for filing the suit and therefore the plaint of the respondents -plaintiffs was liable to be rejected. Mr. Patodia has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Yudhister vs. Ashok Kumar, 1987 (1) RCR 225, to submit that the property which devolved on a Hindu under Section 8 of the Succession Act would not be HUF in his hand vis -a -vis his own sons. He has also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Saleem Bhai and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2003) 1 SCC 557, submit that the powers under Rule VII Rule 11 of CPC could be exercised at any stage of the proceedings. Reliance has also been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of T. Arivandandam vs. Satyapal and another, AIR 1977 SC 2421, to submit that if on a meaningful reading of the plaint, it appears to the Court that the plaint is vexatious, the Court should exercise power under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. However, learned counsel Mr. Suresh Goyal appearing for respondents -plaintiffs submitted that the averments made in the plaint clearly disclose the cause of action and the Trial Court has, in detail, dealt with the said averments for holding that the application of the petitioner did not deserve any consideration. He also submitted that earlier also the petitioner had submitted such application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC which was dismissed by the Court.

(3.) IN that view of the matter, the revision petition being devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.