BALKISHAN Vs. ANIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming following reliefs:

(2.) Facts of the case in brief are that the respondent - plaintiff filed an application under Section 24 of the Gram Nyayalayas Act before the Gram Nyayalaya, Hanumangarh for permanent and mandatory injunction. The petitioner - defendant moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the ground that no cause of action arises to the respondent - plaintiff. The learned trial court after hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties dismissed the application of the petitioner - defendant vide impugned order dated 11.04.2019. Being aggrieved of the same, the instant writ petition has been preferred.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, while praying for setting aside the impugned order, submits that the application filed by respondent - plaintiff Anil Kumar under Section 24 of the Gram Nyayalayas Act is liable to be dismissed being barred by law as per provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. It is also submitted that when the application was filed on 06.03.2019 before the Gram Nyayalaya, Hanumangarh, the respondent-plaintiff was in custody and therefore, he could not have signed the application nor he could he execute the affidavit in support of the application. It is also contended that the petitioner is a habitual offender of committing cheating, therefore, the application submitted by the respondent - defendant was beyond the jurisdiction and against the law and the same is liable to be dismissed. He also urged that the trial court has committed error by not allowing the application dated 26.03.2019 filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC praying therein that the application of the respondent - plaintiff deserves to be dismissed being barred by law.