[2025:RJ-JP:22994] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 213/2024 Prabhu Dayal Jat S/o Shri Chauthmal Jat, R/o H-79, Industrial Area Shahpura, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. Second Address-A-20, Shri Shyam Nagari, Main Sikar Road, Near Radhika Dhabe, Rajawas, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur-302013. Third Address-Shop No. 4, Nagar Nigam Road, Opp. Stadium, Sanganer Road, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus Dinesh Sharma S/o Shr Prabhu Dayal Sharma, R/o E-63, Prem Nagar, Jhotwara, Jaipur Rajasthan. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sultan Singh Kuri For Respondent(s) : None present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 26/05/2025 1. The instant S.B. Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioner-defendant aggrieved from order dated 30.10.2021 in Civil Suit No.21/2021 titled as Dinesh Sharma Vs. Prabhu Dayal Jat whereby an application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the present petitioner was dismissed. 2. Service of notice upon respondent has been effected but no one is present despite service. 3. Office has pointed out a delay of 879 days and to substantiate the reasons of delay, an application No.1461/2024 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed. [2025:RJ-JP:22994] (2 of 7) [CR-213/2024] 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that aggrieved from the impugned order dated 30.10.2021, a S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2256/2022 was filed before this Hon’ble Court and the same was withdrawn with liberty on 28.03.2024, thereafter, the instant revision petition is filed. 5. Having considered submissions and also on perusal of order dated 28.03.2024, it is apparent that initially the impugned order was challenged by filing a civil writ petition but the same was withdrawn with liberty on 28.03.2024 and, thereafter, the instant revision petition is filed. Therefore, an application under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act is hereby allowed and delay in filing the instant revision petition is condoned. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner while relying upon grounds of revision petition submitted that the plaintiff has filed a civil suit on basis of an unregistered partnership deed dated 10.11.2006, which is not maintainable in view of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act. He also submitted that the plaintiff has claimed joint ownership of a property purchased by way of registered sale deed and as per terms of partnership deed the dispute is required to be referred to the arbitration but the trial Court without considering the grounds has dismissed the application. He also submitted that the respondent-plaintiff has not filed proper Court fee on basis of market valuation of property and suit is liable to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material placed on record. 8. Order VII Rule 11 CPC deals with the grounds for rejection of plaint aiming to prevent frivolous or defective suits. The provision [2025:RJ-JP:22994] (3 of 7) [CR-213/2024] enables the Court to reject a plaint, if certain conditions are satisfied. The provision of Order VII Rule 11 CPC is reproduced as under:- Rejection of plaint— The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:— (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law : (e) where it is not filed in duplicate; (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provision of rule 9: “Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature form correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp- paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.” 9. In case of T. Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC (1) 467, Hon’ble Supreme Court while examining the aforesaid provision has held that the trial court must remember that if on a meaningful and not a formal reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, it should exercise the power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code taking care to see that the ground mentioned [2025:RJ-JP:22994] (4 of 7) [CR-213/2024] therein is fulfilled. If clever drafting has created an illusion of a cause of action, it has to be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party under Order X of the Code. 10. The object of the said provision is further considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sopan Sukhdeo Sable vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner : (2004) 3 SCC 137 and in Popat and Kotecha Property vs. State Bank of India Staff Association, (2005) 7 SCC 510, and held that no court shall permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in a suit in case the suit does not disclose a cause of action or barred by any law or law of limitation. 11. In case of Saleem Bhai vs. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 1 SCC 557 that the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application thereunder are the averments in the plaint. The trial court can exercise the power at any stage of the suit i.e. before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, the averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the defendants in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage. 12. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dahibhen Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali through LRs and Ors. 2020 SCC Online (SC) 562 while dealing with an appeal against an order allowing rejection of a suit at the threshold, had occasion to consider various precedents to discuss the intent under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that if no [2025:RJ-JP:22994] (5 of 7) [CR-213/2024] cause of action is disclosed in the plaint, or if the suit is barred by law, court would not permit protraction of the proceedings and it would be necessary to put an end to the shame litigation so that further judicial time is not wasted. 13. After placing reliance upon Azhar Hussain Vs. Rajiv Gandhi 1986 SCC (SUPP) 315, Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that the entire purpose of conferment of such power is to ensure that a litigation, which is meaningless and bound to prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time and space of the Courts. The power on the Court to terminate a civil action is, however, a drastic one, but the conditions enumerated in Order VII Rule 11 CPC are required to be strictly adhered to. 14. Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with such an application seeking rejection of a plaint clarified that while determining any application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the court should restrict itself to the plaint and should not go into the detail facts as provided under the written statement or even in the application filed for rejection of plaint. While scrutinizing the averments in the plaint, the Court can read documents annexed and relied upon in the plaint. 15. Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC provides that a plaint should be rejected if the suit is barred by any law. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ramisetty Venkatanna Vs. Nasyam Jamal Saheb 2023 INSC 458 has observed that plaint should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (a)(d) of CPC if it is vexatious, illusory cause of action and barred by law. [2025:RJ-JP:22994] (6 of 7) [CR-213/2024] 16. A perusal of plaint indicate that the respondent plaintiff has filed a suit for partition of property and injunction. In para Nos.2 and 3 of plaint, it was mentioned that the plaintiff and defendant have purchased the property in joint ownership and both are having equal share. As regard to ownership or title is concerned, it is not a dispute which can be considered at this stage. The plaintiff has mentioned that on 03.08.2021, when he asked for partition or division the defendant has refused which forced him filing of the instant suit. The plaint also indicate that no relief about the partnership firm is claimed, rather relief of plaintiff is only relating to partition of property and consequent injunction. 17. On basis of valuation as claimed by plaintiff, a fixed Court fee of ₹200/- was paid. Since the subject matter pertains to partition, therefore, at this stage, it is not possible for the Court to draw a conclusion that the plaintiff was required to pay Court fee at market value of the property. A copy of partnership deed is placed on record by plaintiff but same is only referred and not relied by plaintiff. It is an admitted fact that partnership firm is an unregistered firm and in clause 18, it was mentioned that any dispute arising out of partnership business or as to interpretation of the terms and conditions of deed and operation of partnership firm shall be referred to arbitration. The instant suit is not filed about the affairs of partnership firm in the name and style of M/s. Prabhu Ji Milk Product. Therefore, the issue of partition cannot be referred to the Arbitration. 18. A copy of sale deed dated 15.11.2006 is also placed on record, which shows that the property was purchased jointly by Prabhu Dayal Jat and Dinesh Sharma who are partners of M/s. [2025:RJ-JP:22994] (7 of 7) [CR-213/2024] Prabhu Ji Milk Product. It is quite apparent that the property may be used by partnership firm but same is not purchased in the name of partnership firm. Otherwise also, the partnership is not a registered firm, therefore, the trial Court has rightly considered the objections raised by the petitioner-defendant. 19. In view of discussion made hereinabove, no case is made out for invoking jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Thus, the instant civil revision petition is sans merits and same is liable to be dismissed. 20. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed and delay in filing the instant civil revision petition is condoned but the instant civil revision petition filed by the petitioner-defendant is hereby dismissed. 21. Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of. 22. No order as to costs. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/126