- (1.) THESE revision petitions are directed against the order dated 13.8.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge No.5, Jodhpur Metropolitin, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC has been rejected.
(2.) THE brief facts may be noticed thus : the respondent No.1 filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed, permanent injunction and compensation against the then Urban Improvement Trust and certain private parties, in whose favour the sale deed was executed by the petitioner. The relief claimed in the suit inter- alia including cancellation of the sale deed and permanent injunction against the defendant No.1 ­ private party. It appears that when for a long time, no written statement was filed by the petitioner -Trust, the written statement was closed. However, it is pointed out that subsequently, the written statement alongwith application under Section 148 CPC has been filed for taking on record the said written statement, but no order on the said application has been filed and still the written statement is not on record. It appears that to getover the said situation, wherein the written statement on behalf of the petitioner is not on record, an application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC was filed by the petitioner inter -alia on the ground that the plaintiff has not complied with the mandatory provisions of Section 98 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 ('the Act') and therefore, the suit was not maintainable.
(3.) THOUGH no reply to the said application was filed by the plaintiff. The learned trial court after hearing the parties dismissed the application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC.;