LAWS(JHAR)-2016-1-91

BIRENDRA KUMAR Vs. DHANANJAI JHA

Decided On January 18, 2016
BIRENDRA KUMAR Appellant
V/S
Dhananjai Jha Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by order dated 21.9.2013 in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 3 of 2008 whereby, application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC has been rejected, the present writ petition has been filed. The petitioner is defendant in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 3 of 2008. The eviction suit was filed for ejection of the defendant from the Schedule -A premises. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant has been paying rent regularly for the rented premises consisting of one room with "dhaba" however, from April, 2008 he failed to pay rent for the same. The eviction suit was filed under Sec. 11(c) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982. In the pending suit the petitioner/defendant appeared and filed written statement claiming that he has purchased the premises comprised under plot No. 32/110 through registered sale deed dated 3.6.2008 i.e. prior to institution of the eviction suit. In the pending suit, the defendant filed application dated 24.3.2011 under Order VII, rule 11(d) CPC seeking rejection of the plaint.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a purchaser of the premises comprised in Plot No. 32/110 through registered sale deed however, the said sale deed has not been challenged by the plaintiff in any legal proceeding and thus, under Sec. 31 of the Specific Relief Act r/w Article 59 of the Limitation Act, the suit is barred. It is contended that filing of the Title (Eviction) Suit No. 3 of 2008 suppressing material facts would amount to abuse of the process of the court. Referring to judgment in "Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. and Others vs. Owners & Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune Express and Others" : (2006) 3 SCC 100, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court can exercise power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint on the ground of abuse of the process of the court.

(3.) Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, the learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order dated 21.9.2013 in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 3 of 2008.