R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 23.07.2010, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Lalsot, District Dausa, whereby the learned Civil Judge has dismissed the petitioner's application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the petitioner has challenged the same before this Court.
(2.) THE Brief facts of the case are that in 2009, the respondent, Shaitan Singh, filed a suit against the petitioner for permanent injunction claiming himself as adopted son of Late Padam Singh. On 26.03.2010, the petitioner filed his written statement and denied the contents made in the plaint. On 19.04.2010, the petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint on the ground that no 'will' was ever executed by late Padam Singh in favour of the respondent and respondent was never adopted by him as his son. On 01.05.2010, the respondent filed reply to the application. However, vide order dated 23.07.2010, the learned Judge has dismissed the said application. Hence, this petition before this Court. Mr. Shishu Pal Singh, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the entire plaint is based on false and fabricated facts. According to the learned Counsel, the respondent is not the adopted son of Late Padam Singh. The issue whether he is the adopted son of Late Padam Singh or not already stands decided by judgment dated 16.05.1992, passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Lalsot, District Dausa, wherein the learned Magistrate had already held that the respondent is not the adopted son of Late Padam Singh. According to the learned Counsel, this judicial finding could not be ignored. Yet hiding this judgment which was against him, the respondent had filed the civil suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner. According to the learned Counsel, the withholding of the vital facts tantamounts to a fraud being played upon the Court. However, the learned Judge has overlooked these aspects of the case and has erred in rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
(3.) HEARD the Learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order.;