IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.R. No.29 of 2023 ---- 1. Lal Krishna Nath Shahdeo, aged about 37 years son of Late Shambhu Nath Shahdeo, resident of Village-Tupudana, Champa Toli, PO: Hatia, PS: Dhurwa, District-Ranchi 2. Lal Harsh Nath Shahdeo, aged about 21 years, son of Lal Satyanarayan Nath Shahdeo, resident of Village-Dungri, Kharsidag, PO: Hatia, PS: Dhurwa, District- Ranchi …. …. Petitioner(s) Versus 1. Vinodini Devi, widow of Late Lal Randhir Nath Shahdeo 2. Geeta Shahdeo, widow of Late Lal Murari Nath Shahdeo, both are residents of village-Dungri, Near R.K. Mission Road, Tupudana, PO: Hatia, PS: Dhurwa, District-Ranchi 3. Lal Dhurv Nath Shahdeo, son of Late Indra Nath Shahdeo, resident of Tupudana, PO: Hatia, PS: Dhurwa, District-Ranchi …. …. Opposite Party(s) ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr.Rahul Kumar Gupta, Adv. For the Opposite Party(s) : Mr. Prashant Kr. Srivastava, Adv. ---- 12/Dated: 13th February, 2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present civil revision has been filed against the order dated 01.09.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ranchi in Original Suit No.213 of 2022. 3. From the argument and pleading of the parties, it appears that the suit has been filed for following reliefs: a. On adjudication of the plaintiff's right, title and interest over the suit property fully described on the schedule and title be declared and a decree for recovery of possession be passed and the plaintiffs be put in Khas possession thereof. b. A decree for temporary injunction be passed against the defendants from dealing and transferring or constructing and construction work of the suit property described in the schedule to the plaint by plaintiffs by any process or method whatsoever. c. Cost of the suit be awarded. d. Any other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiff be found entitled be also be awarded. 4. It appears that the revisionists have filed a written statement disputing the claim. It further appears that a petition has been filed under Order VII Rule 11 (a) & Page | 2 C.R. No.29 of 2023 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure introducing a new fact through the written statement as well as under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that has not been denied by the plaintiff. 5. It is settled principle of law that the rejection of plaint can be considered only going through the plaint itself. No new fact can be introduced. The plea of the revisionists is otherwise not acceptable as because the plaintiff never get an opportunity to deny any statement made in the written statement. It is unknown proceeding. 6. In view of above discussion, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this civil revision case is, hereby, dismissed. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Shahid/- Uploaded