Sanjay Agarwal, J
1. Heard on I.A. Nos. 1 and 2. These are the applications for urgent hearing of this matter during vacation. On due consideration and for the reasons
assigned therein, I am inclined to allow the same. The applications are accordingly allowed.
2. Heard on admission.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order impugned as passed by the trial Court rejecting the application filed under Section 151 of
CPC is apparently contrary to law. He submits that the plaintiffs have already instituted a suit for arrears of rent and for eviction which was decreed
by the trial Court. It was however, reversed in appeal and the Second Appeal preferred there against is pending before this Court. He, therefore,
submits that because of the earlier instituted suit, the present suit is not maintainable. According to his further contention, since the suit is filed in the
year 2015 beyond the prescribed period of 3 years by questioning the agreement to sale dated 18.10.2006, therefore, it is apparently barred by time.
Without considering the same, the trial Court has committed an illegality in rejecting the application filed under Section 151 of CPC.
4. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration of title, possession, permanent injunction and also praying for declaration to the effect that the
alleged agreement to sale dated 18.10.2006 be declared as null & void. During the pendency of the suit, an application was made under Section 151 of
CPC praying for rejection of the suit on the ground that since the earlier suit for eviction was dismissed, therefore, the instant suit is not maintainable
and liable to be rejected.
5. From perusal of the record, it appears that the earlier suit which was instituted was for eviction, registered as Civil Suit No. 20-A/2009. The said
suit was decreed by the concerned trial Court by judgment and decree dated 22.06.2012. It was however, reversed in appeal preferred by the
defendant vide judgment and decree dated 18.09.2014 and the appeal preferred there against before this Court was under consideration in Second
Appeal No. 400/2014. During the course of the argument, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant that earlier an application was
made under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC praying for rejection of the plaint which was rejected by the trial Court vide its order dated 09.08.2018. Be that
as it may, the nature of earlier instituted suit and present suit is entirely on different footing and therefore, it cannot be said that the present suit is liable
to be rejected. Even otherwise, in absence of any specific bar, I am not inclined to entertain the application filed by the applicant under Section 151 of
CPC for rejection of the plaint. As far as question of limitation is concerned, the same is also liable to be rejected as the same involves the mixed
question of law and fact and could be decided only by framing the issue.
6. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any infirmity in the order impugned passed by the trial Court. The petition being devoid of merit is
therefore, liable to be and is hereby dismissed at admission stage itself. No order as to costs.
