C.R. No. 69/2014. Case: Ramnaresh Yadav Vs Triyambak Fatak. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)
| Case Number | C.R. No. 69/2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Prashant Sharma, Advocate and For Respondents: P.C. Chandil, Advocate |
| Judges | Rohit Arya, J. |
| Issue | Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order IX Rules 8, 9; Order VII Rule 11; Order XXIII Rules 1(3), 1(4)(b); Section 115; Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 - Section 3 |
| Judgement Date | July 08, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India) |
Judgment:
Rohit Arya, J.
1. Heard.
2. This Civil Revision under section 115 CPC by defendant is directed against the order dated 01/05/2014 in civil suit No. 1A/2014 by VIII Civil Judge, Class-II, Gwalior, defendant's application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been rejected.
3. Facts necessary for disposal of this revision petition in narrow compass are that plaintiff has filed a suit styling himself to have title over the suit property and defendant is a tenant in the said suit house. The instant suit is filed for eviction and arrears of rent under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
4. Defendant by the aforesaid application submitted that the suit house in fact is a trust property created for by late Dr. Leela Fatak in the name and style Dr. Fatak Child and Mother Welfare Trust on 05/03/1989. It is denied that the suit house is of the ownership of plaintiff with further assertion that plaintiff has prepared a forged 'will' and has claimed right of ownership of suit house through the same. It is submitted that as the suit property being trust property and the suit is not instituted by trust and, therefore, in the light of provisions of section 3 of the Act, the suit is not maintainable.
5. Trial Court upon perusal of the averments made in the plaint has observed that in the entire body of plaint, there is no such averment that the suit house is a public trust property. Besides, the extract of public trust register produced by the plaintiff shows that against the column of immovable property, nil is mentioned against the name of Dr. Fatak Sishu Avam Mahila Kalyan Nyas.
6. In view of the aforesaid, trial Court has found that the application does not fall in any of the accepted categories under Order VII Rule 11 CPC warranting interference and dismissal of the suit at the first instance.
7. The principle is well settled as regards jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. The Court competent jurisdiction while entertaining such an application is required to look into the plaint averments and the documents attached...
To continue reading
Request your trial