VIJAY LAXMI Vs. PUSHPCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By order dtd. 10/2/2010 passed in Civil Original Suit No.282/2004 (58/97), the learned trial Judge has rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. Since rejection of plaint is a 'decree' as defined in Sec. 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this appeal has been filed under Sec. 96 of C.P.C. challenging the aforesaid rejection.

(2.) A brief background of the case is that respondent No.1 herein namely Pushpchand, who was defendant No.1 of the suit entered into an agreement to purchase Khasra No.310 in village Kudi Bhagtasani, District and Tehsil Jodhpur from Original Defendant No.2-Late Kalu Ram @ Kalia and Original Defendant No.3- Late Pabu Ram @ Pabuda, both sons of late Chaila. On agreement not being performed by Original Defendant Nos.2 and 3, the respondent No.1-Pushpchand brought a suit for specific performance of contract vide Civil Suit No.71/1991 on 30/5/1991. During pendency of the suit, the said Kalu Ram sold his share in Khasra No.310 to 63 persons including the appellants on 29/6/1992 and the sale deed was registered on 7/10/1992. The purchasers got mutated in revenue record on 24/2/1993. Late Kalu Ram appeared in Suit No.71/1991 and filed written statement but did not disclose in the written statement that he had sold the suit property to the present appellants and others. However, by a separate petition, Kalu Ram informed the Court that he is an illiterate person and when the plaintiff was not performing his part of the contract, he already sold his share in the aforesaid Khasra to 63 persons.

(3.) Thereafter, plaintiff-Pushpchand filed an application for disclosure of the name of lis pendens purchasers but late Kalu Ram could disclose name of a few and stated in the petition that since the sale-deed is a registered document, plaintiff can obtain certified copy and get name of the purchasers. But the course adopted by the trial Court was that defence of Kalu Ram was rejected.