IQRAM KHAN Vs. NATHAN KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been filed under Art. 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dt. 28.02.2013 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dausa (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court") in Civil Suit No. 1/2010, whereby the trial Court has dismissed the application of the petitioner -defendant, filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. The only contention raised by the learned counsel Mr. Nawal Singh Sikarwar, for the petitioner, is that the suit filed by the respondent -plaintiff does not disclose the cause of action, and therefore, the plaint of the respondent -plaintiff is liable to the rejected. He has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Ram Sukh vs. Dinesh Aggarwal, : 2010 DNJ (SC) 147, to submit that the petition did not contain the material facts as required to be stated in terms of Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

(2.) BEFORE appreciating the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is required to be stated that the petitioner -defendant had filed the application under Order VII Rule 11 seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaint did not disclose cause of action, at the stage when the evidence of the plaintiff's side was already over and the evidence of the petitioner -defendant was going on. Since the suit is at the fag end, the trial Court has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Even otherwise, from the averments made in the plaint -petition, it appears that the respondent -plaintiff has already stated the material facts as required and also disclosed the cause of action. At this juncture, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court, which even otherwise, is just and proper. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no application to the facts of the present case. In view of the above, the petition being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.