 |
| Civil Revision u/s 115 cpc |
IN THE COURT OF LEARNED DISTRICT JUDGE
In the matter of:
(Full name with parentage and address of the
petitioner/s) …Petitioner
Versus
(Full name with parentage and address of the
respondent/s) …Respondents
CIVIL REVISION U/S 115 C-P-C AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
12.03.2021 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE, WHEREBY THE HON’BLE
TRIAL COURT ACCEPTED THE APPLICATION U/O VI RULE 17 OF C.P.C FILED BY THE
RESPONDENTS
Respectfully Sheweth:-
The brief facts which are arising from the instant
petition are that the respondents being plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent
and mandatory injunction against the petitioner with the assertion that the
petitioner wants to construct his house and also wants to close the path of the
respondents and the public road is also existing, which the petitioner has no
right to do so. The petitioner appeared before the learned trial court and
submitted his detailed written statement and also raised many legal and factual
objections and also contended therein that the petitioner is the lawful owner
in possession of Khsra No. 2222 measuring 1K-13M along with his brother and the
petitioner left path from his own use in khsra No. 2222 and 686 and the
respondents and other villagers have no title, right or interest to use the
same and the respondents have filed a false, frivolous and baseless suit
against the petitioner.
That the petitioner collected building material on
the suit land for raising construction of his house but due to pendency of the suit,
the petitioner did not raise construction over the suit land, which is
exclusively owned and possessed by the petitioner, and after passing more than
one year, the building material collected by the petitioner badly damaged due
to heavy rains, while the respondents delaying the matter by moving the false
and frivolous application under-order 1 Rule X of CPC, which were dismissed by
the learned trial court, ultimately, the respondents moved an application U/O
VI Rule 17 read with section 151 of civil procedure code, which application was
accepted by the learned trial court vide order dated 12.03.2021, hence this
civil revision petition U/S 115 CPC on the following:-
G R O U N D S
That the impugned order dated 12.03.2021 is against
the law, facts, and circumstances of the case.
That the respondents firstly filed a suit for a permanent
and mandatory injunction without any lawful title, right, or interest and after
the dismissal of a number of miscellaneous applications filed the application
for amendment with permission to add the word “declaration” in the headnote and
also in prayer clause, which amendment is an afterthought with deliberation and
also completely change the nature and complexion of the suit, which is not
permissible under the law.
That the respondents did not annex any document
regarding the public path or road, which clearly shows the malafide intention
of the respondents just to deprive the petitioner of his lawful right.
That the respondents have not filed the suit under
easement act and subsequent the respondents seek the amendment for declaration
without any lawful title, right or interest and in such like situation, if the
amendment granted by the learned trial court remained in the field, the nature
of the suit has been completely changed.
That the learned trial court while dismissing the
application U/O 1 Rule X of CPC vide order dated 06.10.2021, directed the
respondents to file a representative suit U/O 1 Rule 8 CPC but the respondents
instead of filing of a representative suit filed different applications just to
prolong the proceeding and restrain the petitioner from using his lawful right
regarding the construction of land which is exclusively owned and possessed by
the petitioner.
That one Mr. Victor on the instigation of the
respondents also filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction
regarding the same subject matter against the petitioner which is also pending
adjudication before the competent court of law.
That the learned trial court passed the impugned
order in a hasty manner because the title of the suit land is not disputed, as
the petitioner is exclusively the owner in possession of Khsra No. 2222 and 686
but the learned trial court while passing the impugned order mentioned in its
order that declaration is necessary when the titled is disputed which fact is
alone sufficient for setting aside the order dated 12.03.2021.
That it is a settled principle of law that a party
can seek the declaration on existing rights not creating the new one, which
principle is applicable in the instant suit because if the public path or road has
existed in the government record, which fact is strengthening the stance of the
petitioner that the respondents want to create new right under the umbrella of
Hon’ble courts.
That if the impugned order dated 12.03.2021
remained in the field, then the petitioner shall suffer an irreparable
loss.
PRAYER
In view of the above circumstances, it is, most
respectfully prayed that while accepting the instant revision petition, the
impugned order dated 12.03.2021 may kindly be set aside and the application
filed by the respondents may kindly be dismissed for the best interest of
justice.
Any other relief which this Hon’ble court deems
just and proper may also be awarded.
Petitioner Through Counsel
Certificate:-
Certified as per
instructions furnished by the petitioner this is the first Civil Revision on
the subject ever moved before this Hon’ble Court.
…Counsel
Note:
Must file the civil revision petition within the specific
time period.
To annex an affidavit with the support of a revision
petition.
To annex an application for stay of proceedings of
learned trial court and suspension of the operation of the impugned order.
 against the acceptance of the application u/o VI Rule 17 of C-P-C filed by the opponent party? The sample is given here, please make necessary amendments as per the facts of the matter.){kind=link}
0 Comments