What is claimed in the plaint is that the appellant and original defendants Nos.
The respondent No.
What is claimed in the plaint is that the suit property was ancestral property belonging to Hindu Undivided Family and after death of Ghisalal his three sons became owners and occupants of the suit land but the appellant with mala fide intentions submitted an application before the Tehsildar, Gwalior to record his name as owner of the disputed land stating that a Will was executed by Ghisalal in his favour.
4 is invalid and illegal.
The relevant facts, which emerge from the record of the case are as under The respondent No.
8853 of 2007.
He has filed suit to declare that Sale Deed dated July 12, 2004 executed by the appellant and original defendants Nos.
This Court has heard the learned companynsel for the parties and companysidered the record forming part of the appeal.
122 of 2005 before the High Court, which was also dismissed on March 29, 2007.
1 and prayed to declare that he is the owner of the suit property.
Thereupon, the appellant had filed Special Leave Petition C No.
5073 of 2004.
35 A of 2006 rejecting the application filed by the appellant under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to stay the suit, is companyfirmed.
The said application was rejected by the Trial Court on July 12, 2006 and, therefore, the appellant had filed revision petition No.
5 to 8.
The writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court vide judgment dated October 26, 2007.
The appellant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and requested the Court to reject the plaint as, according to him, it did number disclose any cause of action.
2 and 3 from alienating the ancestral suit property.
In the said suit, he has also claimed permanent injunction to restrain the appellant and others from alienating the suit property.
5 to 8.
It is claimed in the plaint that on companying to know about the same, the plaintiff and Shankar Lal filed objections, which were allowed by order dated September 11, 1954 and a direction was given by Tehsildar to record the names of three brothers, i.e., the plaintiff, the appellant and Shankar Lal in revenue records, as far as the suit property is companycerned.
Initially, this Court had granted stay of further proceedings of the suit.
He has also prayed the companyrt to injunct the appellant and original defendants Nos.
According to the plaint Ghisalal, who was owner of the property, expired on December 10, 1952 and was survived by three sons, i.e., the original plaintiff, the appellant and one Shankar Lal, who was father of defendants Nos.
In the plaint it is stated that the property in dispute belonged to his father and the appellant as well as grandfather of the original defendants Nos.
Feeling aggrieved the appellant invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution by filing Writ Petition No.
1 herein has filed another suit, i.e., Suit No.
That application was rejected by the Trial Court vide order dated July 23, 2007.
The validity of the said judgment is subject matter of the instant appeal.
2 and 3 and defendants Nos.
35 A of 2006 impleading the appellant as defendant No.
2 and 3 in favour of original defendant No.
M. PANCHAL, J. Leave granted.
Challenge in this appeal by special leave is to the judgment dated October 26, 2007, rendered by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in Writ Petition No.
While rejecting the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, it was numbericed by the trial companyrt that the suit filed earlier was at the stage of recording of evidence and the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was filed to delay the proceedings of the suit.
5073 of 2007, by which the order dated July 23, 2007, passed by the learned IVth Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Suit No.
