LAWS(RAJ)-2025-5-212

AURIC INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED Vs. AMIT KUMAR GUPTA

Decided On May 23, 2025
Auric Infraprojects Limited Appellant
V/S
AMIT KUMAR GUPTA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision petition is preferred by the petitionerdefendant aggrieved from order dtd. 20/1/2025 in Civil Suit No.374/2024 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge No.18, Jaipur Metropolitan-I (Headquarters Sanganer), Jaipur, whereby an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner while relying upon grounds of revision petition submitted that respondent No.1-plaintiff has filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction for a scheme named in para 2 of plaint and for which 'Auric Villas Residents Welfare Society' is constituted under the Rajasthan Apartment Ownership Act, 2015 (hereafter referred to 'the Act of 2015'). Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent-plaintiff has filed a suit in a matter relating to maintenance of a Residents Welfare Association (RWA). He further submitted that the petitioner-defendant has filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the Act of 2015 itself provides for complete resolution mechanism for dispute between member and RWA and competent authority is authorized to adjudicate the dispute but the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a civil suit. Learned counsel submitted that learned trial Court has dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, without considering the provision of Sec. 31 of the Act of 2015.

(3.) Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the respondent No.1-plaintiff and submitted that while deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, no Court can take note of defence of opposite party and the trial Court has not committed any error while dismissing the application. He further submitted that if there is any objection about jurisdiction of the trial Court then same can be considered after framing the issues and leading the evidence. He also submitted that the order passed by the trial Court is in accordance with law and there is no scope of interference.