AMARIT LAL Vs. RAM PYARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 6. 10. 1999 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jodhpur in Civil Suit No. 62/98 whereby the learned Civil Judge rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) filed by the defendant petitioner.

(2.) THE civil suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 50,000/- of damages has been filed by the plaintiff-non-petitioner with the averments in the plaint, inter alia, that the plaintiff was residing in a house at Gancha Gali, Mirchi Bazar, Jodhpur since the time of her birth and was sole heir of the parents and residing in the house as exclusive owner. According to the plaintiff, she was intentionally got entangled in the litigation by the defendant in respect of the said house by alleging herself to be a tenant and further falsely imputed taking of a loan of Rs. 300/- by her father. THE notice dated 16. 5. 1995 got served by the defendant was adequately replied on 23. 5. 1995 and damages for serving a false notice to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- were claimed. According to the plaintiff, despite receiving reply to the notice and despite being aware of the correct facts, the defendant filed a suit on 3. 8. 1995 before the District Judge, Jodhpur for recovery of possession of the house. Summons for appearance in the suit were received by her from the Court of Addl. District Judge No. 3, Jodhpur which caused her mental and physical agony. She was under serious tension on reading the averments in the plaint. A baseless application seeking temporary injunction was also filed without any reasonable cause. In order to continue to pressurize her, application for appointment of Commissioner was also made and when she was making preparations for the marriage of her son and the house was being repaired and renovated, the work was got stayed by obtaining injunction. THE written statement to the aforesaid false, malafide and baseless suit was filed and damages were claimed to the tune of Rs. 30,000/ -. THE plaintiff non-petitioner has averred that the false suit filed by the defendant (petitioner) was ultimately dismissed on 12. 5. 1997 on account of counsel for the present defendant (plaintiff in the said suit) pleading no instructions. THE plaintiff has claimed damages for defending the baseless suit and for mental agony.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case, this court is clearly of the opinion that present revision is devoid of substance and deserves to be dismissed.