VIMLA DEVI NAGAR Vs. KRISHAN AVTAR NAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant revision petition is preferred by petitioners defendant nos. 1 and 10 aggrieved from order dtd. 17/10/2022 in civil suit no. 498/2022 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (North) Jaipur Metropolitan-II whereby an application preferred under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was dismissed.

(2.) The facts giving rise to instant revision petition are that plaintiff respondent no.1 has filed a civil suit for declaration of registered sale deed dtd. 10/12/1985 as void and ineffective to his rights and permanent injunction. The present petitioners have filed application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Sec. 9 and 151 of CPC on the ground that on the basis of pleadings made by plaintiff in the plaint, a civil suit is barred under Sec. 4 of the Benami Transaction Act, 1988 and same is not maintainable before the civil court. Further, an objection was raised that plaintiff has challenged registered sale deed dtd. 10/12/1985 after 37 years of execution, therefore, the suit is also barred by law of limitation. The petitioners have further raised an objection that suit is improperly valued and sufficient court fee is not paid. At last, locus of plaintiff to file civil suit including non accrual of cause of action was raised. The trial court has dismissed the application on 17/10/2022 and aggrieved from impugned order the instant revision petition is preferred.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners while referring to the grounds and averment in the plaint has submitted that as per plaintiff this property was purchased as benami but the pleadings clearly indicate that the averment in plaint is contrary to Sec. 4 of Benami Transaction Act and the suit is not maintainable. He further submitted that the document was challenged by plaintiff without disclosing the reasons of delay after a long period of 37 years, such suit is barred by law of limitation. He also referred the material on record and submitted that the plaintiff has failed to show his locus to file instant civil suit and no cause of action accrued in favour of plaintiff to file instant civil suit. Learned counsel has further submitted that the property was purchased in 1975 but same was under rigour of Rajasthan Land Ceiling Act and only after release in 1985, a deed was registered. He also referred improper valuation of plaint and insufficient court fee and submitted that the plaintiff has not filed adequate court fee, therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.