R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) THIS review petition has been filed against the judgment dated 25th August, 2010, whereby this Court has upheld 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 had dismissed the petitioner's application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
(2.) THE Brief facts of the case are that Shaitan Singh, the respondent No. 1, had filed a suit for permanent injunction against Ganpat Singh, defendant -proforma -respondent No. 2, and against Bhanwar Singh, the present petitioner. In his plaint, he had claimed that he was the adopted son of Late Padam Singh. He had further claimed that the Commissioner under the Jagir Resumption Act had concluded that he was adopted by Late Padam Singh and had earmarked his property. Moreover, the Commissioner had earmarked a small portion of the 'Hawali' as belonging to Ganpat Singh. Shaitan Singh in his plaint had further contended that Ganpat Singh is trying to encroach upon the part of the property, which according to the Commissioner, belongs to the plaintiff. He had further alleged that the present petitioner incites Ganpat Singh to encroach upon the property which belongs to the plaintiff. Therefore, he had sought permanent injunction against Ganpat Singh that he should not encroach upon the property which belongs to the plaintiff. Most importantly he had sought permanent injunction against the present petitioner that he should be restrained from inciting Ganpat Singh to encroach upon the property of the plaintiff. The petitioner moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC wherein he had claimed that the issue whether Shaitan Singh was actually adopted by Late Padam Singh was already decided by another Civil Court. While this case was argued on 25th August, 2010, the learned Counsel had raised the following plea as under: 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.) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel on his contentions, vide order dated 25th August, 2010, this Court has dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this review petition before this Court.;