[1] Last time, this Court had heard the matter at length. As the Court was not inclined to allow the revision application, learned advocate for the applicants sought time to take necessary instructions. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned. Today, when the matter is taken up, during the course of proceedings, this Court has asked certain query to Mr.Malkan, learned advocate for the applicant, however, Mr.Malkan is not a position to reply the same. He submitted that he is human being and he could not find out relevant documents, which are required to bring to the notice of the Court.
[2] In this circumstances, this Court has no other option but to decide the matter on merits after perusing the records.
[3] By this revision application, the applicants herein – original defendants are challenging the order dated 09.08.2012 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara below Exh.18 in Special Civil Suit No.307 of 2012.
[4] Original defendants made application Ex.18 under Order VII, Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejecting the suit and challenging the maintainability of the suit. After hearing both the parties, the learned Trial Court vide order dated 09.08.2012 rejected the application. Hence, this revision application.
[5] It is an admitted fact that on the ground of limitation and as the respondent society is not registered, earlier present applicants – original defendants submitted application under Order VII, Rule 11(a) and (d) of the CPC before the Trial Court and raised contentions before the Trial Court and requested to reject the plaint. Said application was withdrawn by the applicants. Said fact is reflected from the affidavit filed by the respondent herein – original plaintiff before this Court.
[6] It is submitted by Mr.Vyas, learned advocate for the respondent – original plaintiff that above application was unconditionally withdrawn by the original defendants.
[7] Considering above aspect, in opinion of this Court, once the original defendants had raised contentions by filing application under Order VII, Rule 11(a) and (d) of the CPC and same were withdrawn, now on the same ground original defendants cannot be allowed to obtain order from the Trial Court for same relief which was prayed in the earlier application.
[8] Even otherwise, the Trial Court has discussed each and every point in great detail and Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that without recording evidence, the plaint cannot be rejected.
[9] This being Revision Application, the scope of this Court in the Revision Application is very limited and unless findings are found to be perverse and contrary to the evidence on record, interference of this Court is not warranted. Under the circumstances, Revision application is required to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(M.D.SHAH, J.) satish