LI Network
Published on: November 16, 2023 at 01:10 IST
The Chhattisgarh High Court clarified that during the evaluation of an application for the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, a disputed question of fact cannot be adjudicated.
The court made this observation in an appeal challenging the dismissal of a land dispute suit by the Second Additional District Judge.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Goutam Bhaduri and Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari ruled that the effect of a property purchase could not be overlooked, and it shouldn’t be resolved by a shortcut method through Order VII Rule 11 CPC in a land dispute. The court emphasized that the provision could not be used to bypass the examination of the consequences of a property transaction.
The appellants had purchased the disputed land through sale deeds and a power of attorney, initiating a suit due to inaccuracies in the State Government’s revenue records.
The court noted that the trial court ignored the appellants’ claim of purchasing the property in 1993 and criticized the use of Order VII Rule 11 CPC to dismiss the suit without considering the effects of the property transactions.
The court referred to the case of Ram Niwas (Dead) through LRs v. Bano (Smt.) and Others (2000), emphasizing that when the application for amendment and compromise was filed, it became clear that the sale was well within the knowledge of the defendant.
The court criticized the defendant’s conduct in obtaining the compromise decree, stating it did not satisfy the court’s conscience.
Referring to the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu by LRs v. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs. And Others (1994), the court asserted that the principle of “finality of litigation” cannot be used as an engine of fraud.
The court concluded by allowing the appeal, setting aside the order, and emphasizing that the doctrine of lis pendens it cannot be applied to encourage dishonest litigants.
Case Title: Mehul Kumar Patel & Ors. v. Rishikesh Gupta & Ors.
