- (1.) THIS petition has been filed challenging the order dated 8-6-2012 passed by the Board of Revenue Ajmer (herein after 'the Board') dismissing petitioner's revision petition against the order dated 9-6-2008 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer Amer Head Quarter Jaipur. The SDO Amer had in turn dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the petitioner as defendant in a suit No.212/2006 filed by one Suresh Yadav under Sections 53, 88, 188 of the Rajasthan tenancy Act, 1955 for declaration, partition and permanent injunction in respect of land bearing khasra No.929 measuring 1.78 hectare situate on the periphery of village Machera Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur.
(2.) THE Board has held that a plaint is to be rejected with reference to Order 7 Rule 11 CPC only on one of the four clauses a, b, c, d. It held that on a mere reading of the plaint none of the four grounds aforesaid was made out and consequently the SDO Amer had rightly dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and perusing the impugned orders passed by the courts below, I am of the view that the trial court has passed a reasoned order for rejection of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. It is trite that a suit cannot be dismissed with reference to Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the basis of the defence of defendant. The procedure for evaluating the defence of defendant is by way of written statement and framing of issues. In this view of the matter, I find no legal infirmity or perversity in the order passed by the Board upholding the order of the trial court. Even otherwise within the limitation of the scope of petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as detailed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty Vs. Rajendra Shanakar Patil [(2010) 8 SCC 329] this petition has no force. However subsequent to filing of written statement by the petitioner defendant and framing of issues, if legal issues come to be framed, the same can be addressed as a preliminary issue with reference to Order 14 Rule 2 CPC. In view of the fact that the suit is pending since 2006, on filing of written statement by the defendant and framing of issues the suit be disposed of within twelve months thereafter. With the above directions, the petition is dismissed. Stay application also stands dismissed. ;