JAN KALYAN VIKAS SAMITI Vs. KAUSALYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been preferred by plaintiff against order dated 25.9.1998 whereby Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) Sanganer (Jaipur district) rejected suit No. 463/1996 on the objection raised by defendant (respondent) in their application Under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C., which was also upheld by Additional District Judge Jaipur District Jaipur in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 21/1998.

(2.) Facts, in brief, are that Jankalyan Vikas Samiti (plaintiff/petitioner) filed suit for permanent injunction on 28.10.1996 in respect of a piece of land measuring 942 sq. yards situated in colony Azad Nagar-A which is said to have been developed by Kartarpura Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. Jaipur for a public park and facility area for residents in its Scheme known as Azad Nagar-A 'Tonk Road Sanganer Jaipur, with a prayer ad infra: ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]...

(3.) After service of summons upon defendant respondent, an application was filed under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. raising objection that plaintiff Samiti has been registered for development of colonies and for its residents and - reference whereof has been made in para 3 of plaint and which does not include Azad Nagar-A; as such no grievance could have been raised with regard to plot situated in colony other than for whose welfare and development, the Samiti has been registered and in absence of cause of action to plaintiff in respect of plot situated in Azad Nagar-A, very suit is not maintainable taking note of submissions made, the learned trial Judge observed that the suit plot is a part of land situated in colony Azad Nagar-A and the plaintiff Samiti is registered co- operative society duly constituted only for welfare of residents of colonies which do not include colony Azad Nagar-A. Thus it is neither within their constitution nor for which it has been registered - in absence whereof, no grievance can be raised in regard to suit land and accordingly the trial Judge rejected the plaint vide order dated 25.9.1998 against which plaintiff petitioner preferred appeal. The leaned appellate Judge while upholding rejection of plaint vide aforesaid order of trial Judge, dismissed plaintiff's appeal vide order dated 17.10.1998. Hence this revision petition.