Trial court can not reject his petition u/ order 7 rule 11?

prop

Distinguished Panelist,

 

Defendant in his Revision Petition has contended that without giving any reason Trial Court can not reject his petition U/ Order 7 Rule 11 and mere non-prosecution on his part can not be a ground for rejection of petition U/ O7 R11.

 

Case Detail / Steps

 

In a Title Suit (original Suit), Ld. Court allows ad-interim Injunction order against Defendant.

 

Defendant files WO and WS.

 

Plaintiff files petition under Order 40 Rule 1 for appointment of a Receiver and copy served to the Defendant.

 

Next hearing Defendant did not attend hearing.

Ld Court orders and make said ad-interim Injunction order as Absolute till the disposal of the Title Suit in the absence of the Defendant.

 

After Permanent Injunction order against him, Defendant stopped attending court proceedings.

 

After 10 hearings (In span of 1 year)  Ld Court appoints Receiver under Order 40 Rule 1 as per Plaintiff’s petition.

 

After 1st visit / inspection of the Ld Receiver, Defendant again appears in the suit with a Show Cause petition which was allowed by the Ld Court with a cost of Rs 500/-

 

After Receiver’s 2nd visit / inspection, it become clearer to the Ld Receiver that the Defendant is violating Injunction order and not co-operating with him also.

Defendant is trying to give possession to some outsiders.

 

Plaintiff files a petition under 151 CPC with prayer to allow the Ld Receiver to lock the suit premises.

On the other side Defendant files an application under Order 7 Rule 11 on the same day. Both party serve copy to each other.

 

After filing the said O7R11 petition, Defendant chooses not to attend subsequent proceedings in the suit.

 

After 3rd visit / Inspection, Receiver in his report prays for Police help so that he can take control of the suit property.

 

NOTE: In the mean time , after the 3rd visit of the Ld Receiver, 3 (three) unknown persons claiming themselves as legitimate tenants of the parts of suit property files separate Title suits against the landlords and the Plaintiff of Title Suit (original Suit) without disclosing to the Ld Court that there is already a Permanent Injunction order for the entire suit property (original Suit) and gets an ad-interim order against Landlords and Defendant/Plaintiff (original Suit). Landlord, Defendant and these three parties are all hand-in-hand and they want to dislodge the Plaintiff from the suit property. Local Police is also managed so they can do changes in the nature & character of the suit property.

 

Because Defendant took no steps even after Show Cause issued against him, Ld Court rejects his application under Order 7 Rule 11 and allows Plaintiff’s petition under 151 CPC and order’s Ld Receiver to put his lock & Key at suit property.

 

Now the suit property is under “Custodia legis”

 

Defendant approaches the Hon’ble HC with a revision petition against rejection of his petition U/ O7 R11 with a prayer to set-aside trial court’s rejection order and put a stay on Ld Receiver’s activities.

 

In other words, his contention is – court proceedings can not be held without disposing his petition U/ O7 R11 and because he is not attending the proceedings so Ld. Court has to go into the merits of his said petition even in his absence or wait till he again appears in the suit.

 

My question is:

 

(a) Is there any rule that Civil Court has to go into the merits of the pleadings in absence of the party filing the petition?

 

(b) Can Defendant take such route so that his contempt can be swept under the carpet and the case proceedings can be held in perpetuity?

 

Any case citation / remedy available to the Plaintiff to present against the Defendant’s Revision Petition in the High Court?

 

Looking forward for your valuable suggestions.

 

Thanks.

 
Reply   
 
Advocate

The conception of defendant is erroneous and contrary to law. Court has rightly passed the order. The court was supposed to dispose the application u/o. 7 rule 11 cpc. In facts it seems that defendant is adopting delay tactics. Consult your lawyer and go with his advise.
 
Reply   
 


Advocate

The conception of defendant is erroneous and contrary to law. Court has rightly passed the order. The court was supposed to dispose the application u/o. 7 rule 11 cpc. In facts it seems that defendant is adopting delay tactics. Consult your lawyer and go with his advise.
 
Reply   
 
Advocate

The conception of defendant is erroneous and contrary to law. Court has rightly passed the order. The court was supposed to dispose the application u/o. 7 rule 11 cpc. In facts it seems that defendant is adopting delay tactics. Consult your lawyer and go with his advise.
 
Reply   
 
Advocate

The conception of defendant is erroneous and contrary to law. Court has rightly passed the order. The court was supposed to dispose the application u/o. 7 rule 11 cpc. In facts it seems that defendant is adopting delay tactics. Consult your lawyer and go with his advise.
 
Reply   
 

LEAVE A REPLY


    

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



 

  Search Forum








×

Menu

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query
CrPC Course!     |    x