2025:JHHC:16003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Revision No. 23 of 2023 Bijay Kumar Sinha @ Vijay Kumar Sinha, age 60 years, Son of Sri Lal Mohan Prasad, resident of VIP Colony, Near – Ramson Apartment Gali No. 2, Dhaiya, P.O. – I.S.M., P.S. & District – Dhanbad. ….. Petitioner / Defendant No. 1 Versus 1. Shri Lal Mohan Prasad, aged about 82 years, Son of Late Parmeshwar Lal. 2. Shri Gopal Krishna Verma, aged about 56 years. 3. Shri Girdhari Lal Verma, aged about 51 years. 4. Shri Murari Prasad Verma, aged about 49 years. (2) to (4) All sons of Sri Lal Mohan Prasad, All resident of Bekarbandh, Behind Basant Mistan Bhandar, P.O., P.S. & District – Dhanbad. ….. Opposite parties / Plaintiffs 5. Govind Krishna Verma, Son of Lal Mohan Prasad, resident of Bekarbandh, Behind Basant Mistan Bhandar, P.O., P.S. & District – Dhanbad. ….. Proforma Opp. Party / Defendant No. 2 --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Raunak Sahay, Advocate. For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate. --------- Order No. 11/Dated: 16th June, 2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner on the point of admission of this Civil Revision. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the plaintiffs (opposite parties herein) had filed a Original Partition Suit No. 142 of 2022 stating therein that the suit property was purchased by their mother namely, Nirmala Devi in the name of Bijay Kumar Sinha (defendant no. 1) vide Sale Deed No. 1269 dated 31.01.1989, against which, the petitioner has filed M.C.A. No. 187/2023 under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. for rejection of plaint. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the learned trial court has rejected the instant M.C.A. No. 187/2023 by 2025:JHHC:16003 2 observing that there is no substance in the instance petition for rejection of plaint. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the suit property which was obtained vide Sale Deed No. 1269 dated 31.01.1989 is not the joint property while it is the exclusive property of this petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs / opposite parties (herein) has opposed the aforesaid contentions and has submitted that the property included in the suit property, which was obtained vide Sale Deed No. 1269 dated 31.01.1989 was purchased by their mother namely, Nirmala Devi in the name of defendant no. 1 (petitioner) and there is no irregularity in the impugned order and the learned trial court has very wisely passed a reasoned order regarding contested question raised by the petitioner, which cannot be form subject matter under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. 6. It appears that in the impugned order itself, learned trial court has recorded finding that the property so included is part of joint property or not and other cause of action are contested question, which has to be decided on the basis of evidence of the parties and cannot be subject matter under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. and accordingly, rejected the petition of the petitioner. 7. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order and there is no merit in this revision. 8. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Sunil/