RAMAKANT BRAHMAN Vs. RAMDEEN KACHHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed by the petitioner/defendant under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the order dated 11.5.2017 passed in Civil Suit No.27-A/2017 by the Civil Judge Class-II, Manpur District Umariya whereby the application filed by the petitioner/ defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC has been rejected.

(2.) In brief the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 and 2 have filed the Civil Suit No.27-A/2017 against the petitioner for declaration of title and for possession on the ground that the disputed property is their ancestral property and as such they are its rightful owner. The civil suit was filed on 26.11.2015 and the cause of action is said to be have arisen on 14.6.2015 when the petitioner/defendant No.1 tried to restrain the respondents/plaintiffs to cultivate their land.

(3.) In the aforesaid civil suit an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC was filed by the petitioner contending that a false suit has been filed by the plaintiff suppressing material facts as on earlier occasion, in the year 1997 a Civil Suit No.99-A/1997 was also filed by the plaintiffs in the Court of Second Civil Judge Class-II, Umariya for declaration and permanent injunction as also for possession of the same disputed property. The aforesaid suit was filed on 4.1.1994 and in the said suit the cause of action is said to have arisen on 5.10.1993. It is further stated in the said application that in the earlier suit the plaintiffs' case was that the defendant has illegally possessed their land and also dug a well in the said land and is trying to stop the plaintiffs from cultivating the same. It is further submitted that the aforesaid suit was dismissed by the learned Judge of the trial Court on 16.12.1998 for want of prosecution and since no appeal or revision has been preferred against the aforesaid order dated 16.12.1998, the same has attained finality and as such the plaintiffs are precluded from filing a fresh suit on the same cause of action. Thus, it is submitted by Shri Jain, the counsel for the petitioner that in the present suit the plaintiffs have suppressed all these facts in the plaint and have played a fraud with the Court by making false statement on affidavit.