Full Judgment
CR NO.384/13 15/01//2014 Shri Nitin Pendharkar, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Heard on I.A.No.249/2014 under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC, I.A.No.722/2004 under Order 22 Rule 9 of CPC and I.A.No.723/2014 under section 5 of the Limitation Act in the matter of bringing legal heirs of petitioner no.2 on record.
I.A.No.249/14 is allowed and the legal heirs of petitioner no.2 are brought on record.
Necessary amendment be made in the cause title during the couRs.of the day.
Heard on the question of admission.
Challenge in this revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is made to an interlocutory order dated 22-08-13, passed by the 14th Civil Judge Class-I Jabalpur in Civil Suit No.394-A/ 2013, by which an application filed by the petitioners/defendants in the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been rejected.
Respondent/plaintiff has filed suit in question claiming her right, possession and declaration over the suit property.
Application under Order 7 Rule 11 was filed by the petitioners/defendants mainly on the ground that description and identity of the property is not properly disclosed in the plaint and therefore, the suit was not maintainable.
The court below has taken note of all these factors and has found that it is the case of the plaintiff that the property is joint family property and partition has not been effected and the particulars of the property i.e.House No.115 situated in Sanjay Gandhi Ward, Dwarika Nagar, Kanchgarh, Jabalpur and its boundary are explained and finding that the description and the property is sufficiently clear from the plaint, the application has been rejected.
Rejection of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C.as indicated hereinabove, cannot be termed as perveRs.and erroneous to such extent that interference at this interlocutory stage in a revision petition is called for.
Accordingly, finding no ground, the revision petition stands dismissed.
(RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE hsp