RAJU RAM Vs. EJAZ AHMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present Civil Revision is directed against the order dtd. 13/12/2022 passed by Learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-V, Ranchi in Original Suit No. 144 of 2018 whereby and whereunder, an application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC filed by the petitioner/defendant has been rejected.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/opp. Parties have instituted above suit against defendants/petitioners for following reliefs:

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned order has submitted that the learned Court below has failed to appreciate the contentions raised on behalf of the defendant in legal perspective and passed absolutely illegal order. The petitioner/defendant appeared and filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC for rejection of the plaint mainly on the ground that the plaint has to be read as a whole and if clever drafting of the plaint has created the illusion of cause of action, the court will nip it in the bud at the earliest so that the bogus litigation will end at the earliest and has relied upon reported judgment in the case of "Madanuri Shree Ramachandra Vs. Syed Jalan, 2017 (3) JLJR (SC) 1" and "Om Agarwal Vs. Haryana Financial Corporation and Ors. (2015) 4 SCC 317". It is further submitted that the nature of agreement itself discloses that it is rent agreement and not an agreement to sale. The legal dictum is that "Once a tenant always a tenant". The registered agreement dtd. 7/9/1983 has been executed by the Late Husband of the defendant Baso Devi which is merely a rent agreement on monthly basis. The document cannot be interpreted as an agreement to sale. Therefore, the cause of action as pleaded by the plaintiffs is fictious. Virtually, there is no cause of action for the suit for specific performance of contract. It is further submitted that in the registered agreement relied upon by the plaintiffs, there is no stipulation as to by which time the sale deed has to be executed and the property be sold. The suit was filed after 30 years of the said agreement. Therefore, it is also barred by limitation. In view of the above argument, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the plaint filed by the plaintiff is fit to be rejected under provisions of Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC.