Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010035232023 2025:GAU-AS:6707 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP/471/2015 M/S MEGHRAJ MOTILAL AND CO. REP. BY SRI JAWAHARLAL CHANDAK S/O LT. MOTILAL CHANDAK R/O THAKURBARI PATH W/NO.9 NORTH LAKHIMPUR TOWN DIST- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN-787001 VERSUS SRI AFTABUDDIN AHMED BARUA @ SAFARUDDIN AHMED BARUAH S/O LT. TAMIJUDDIN AHMED BARUAH R/O AZIZ BARUAH ROAD K.B. ROAD NORTH LAKHIMPUR TOWN DIST- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN-787001 ------------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. Dhar, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Dutta, Advocate Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 23.05.2025 The instant petition is being taken up taking into account that for the last one decade the suit proceedings have been stayed. 2. It is seen that the present proceedings has been filed challenging an order dated 09.07.2015 by which an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "the Code") for rejection of the plaint was rejected by the learned Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur (hereinafter referred to as, "the learned Trial Court") in Title Suit No. 4/2014. 3. The grounds taken in the application for rejection of the plaint are: a) That the plaintiff has not disclosed in his plaint that there were various other litigations and as such on the basis of the principle of res-judicata, the plaintiff could not have filed the suit. b) The second ground taken is that there was no cause of action for filing of the suit by the plaintiff. c) The third ground so taken is that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property and the Government was not made a party in the said suit. 4. Let this Court analyze the 3 (three) grounds which have been taken. 5. The first ground so taken cannot be a subject matter of a proceeding under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, taking into account that Page No.# 3/4 the question of res-judicata cannot be decided at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. 6. The second ground so taken is that the plaintiff has no cause of action cannot also be a ground for rejection of the plaint inasmuch as what the Court is required to look into while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code is as to whether, upon reading of a plaint, it discloses a cause of action. This is very different from what is the case of the petitioner herein who was the defendant in the suit. The question of there being no cause of action can only be decided at the trial of the suit. 7. The third ground which is being taken is that the Government has not been made a party and the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit land. The question, as to whether, the Government is a party in the suit or the suit should fail on account of non-joinder of necessary party is a question which can only be decided by the learned Trial Court at the trial of the suit. Further, the question, as to whether, the plaintiff is the owner of the property or not is a question of fact which cannot be decided at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. 8. Considering the above, this Court finds no merit in the instant proceedings, for which, the instant proceedings stands dismissed with a cost of Rs. 11,000/- which the petitioner herein shall deposit before the learned Trial Court on the next dated so fixed herein below. 9. The order dated 15.10.2015 by which the further proceedings of Title Suit No. 04/2014, pending before the learned Trial Court i.e. the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lakhimpur, North Page No.# 4/4 Lakhimpur was stayed is hereby vacated and taking into account that both the parties are duly represented, they are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 16.06.2025. On the said date, the respondents herein are granted the liberty to file appropriate applications seeking substitution taking into account that all this while the suit was stayed by this Court. JUDGE Comparing Assistant