CR-476 of 2017 IN THE HIG Ajit Singh Sher Singh & An CORAM: HON’BL Present:- Mr. For t Mr. For r DEEPAK GUPTA, The 688 of 2014 titl learned Civil Judg 03.10.2016 passe the petitioner as Order VII Rule 11 dismissed. 2. A br revision petition and Ajit Singh a suit seeking a de property describ parties were ea culminated in a compromise, cer parties, whereas According to the Page N: 1 of 3 HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HAR CR-476 of 2017(O&M) Date of decision: 16.03 Versus nr. N’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Mr. G.S. Bedi, Advocate For the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Choudhary, Advocate For respondent No.1. *** TA, J. The petitioner herein is one of the titled “Sher Singh vs. Giriraj and Judge (Junior Division), Pataudi. He assed by the learned trial Court, w r as well as a separate application le 11 of the Code of Civil Procedur A brief reference to the facts is nece tion. Respondent No.1-plaintiff She h are real brothers. The plaintiff a decree for partition and perman cribed in paragraph No.1 of the pla earlier involved in a civil suit b in a compromise decree dated , certain portions of the property reas one portion of the propert the plaintiff, the defendants are n HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH M) 6.03.2026 …Petitione …Respondent PTA the defendants in Civil Suit No. CS and another” pending before the i. He is aggrieved of the order dated rt, whereby the application filed b ion filed by the co-defendant unde dure for rejection of the plaint wa necessary for disposal of the presen f Sher Singh and defendants Girira tiff instituted the above-mentioned manent injunction in respect of the plaint. It has been pleaded that the it bearing No.435 of 1994, which ted 22.10.1994. As per the said rty were demarcated amongst the perty was intentionally kept joint re now trying to encroach upon the ioner ents . CS- the ated d by nder t was sent iriraj oned f the t the hich said t the joint. n the JITEN SHARMA 2026.03.17 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-476 of 2017 said joint proper intention to app institute the pres relief of injunctio 3. The seeking rejection principle of res ju between the par passed on the ba 4. The application vide disclosed a caus adjudicated at th 5. Lear that once the rig suit by way of co maintainable and CPC. 6. I ha petitioner and ha 7. It is VII Rule 11 CPC, in the plaint and by the defendan looked into at th the statements m 8. A p pleaded that alth the parties by vi the property wa Page N: 2 of 3 operty and are attempting to raise appropriate the share of the pla present suit seeking partition of the ction, claiming 1/3rd share therein. The defendants filed an applicatio ction of the plaint on the ground t res judicata, contending that the m parties by virtue of the judgmen e basis of compromise in the earlier The learned trial Court, after hearin vide impugned order dated 03.10 cause of action and that the bar at that stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner h e rights of the parties had already of compromise decree dated 22.10 and the plaint deserved to be re I have considered the submission d have perused the record. It is well settled that while conside PC, the Court is required to examin and the documents relied upon by ndants in the written statement o at that stage. The plaint can be reje ts made in the plaint itself that the A perusal of the plaint shows th although certain portions of the pr y virtue of the compromise decree was kept joint. It is further allege raise construction thereon with th plaintiff, which compelled him to f the joint portion and consequentia rein. ation under Order VII Rule 11 CPC nd that the suit was barred by the he matter had already been settled ment and decree dated 22.10.1994 rlier suit. aring the parties, dismissed the said 3.10.2016, holding that the plain bar of res judicata could not b ner has contended before this Cour ady been determined in the earlie 2.10.1994, the present suit was no e rejected under Order VII Rule 11 ssions of learned counsel for the sidering an application under Orde mine only the averments contained by the plaintiff. The defence taken nt or in the application cannot be rejected only if it is apparent from the suit is barred by any law. s that the plaintiff has specificall e property were separated between cree dated 22.10.1994, a portion o lleged that the defendants are now the m to ntial CPC y the ttled 1994 said laint t be ourt arlier s not le 11 the rder ined aken t be from ically ween on of now JITEN SHARMA 2026.03.17 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-476 of 2017 attempting to en thereon, thereby averments, the p 1/3rd share there 9. From by the principle o shows that the parties. The pres the alleged atte Whether the clai be adjudicated u 10. At th the Court is no allegations made bar of law is no rejected. 11. In v perversity in th application for re 12. Cons dismissed. 16.03.2026 Jiten Whe Whe Page N: 3 of 3 o encroach upon the said joint po reby interfering with the rights of th he plaintiff has sought partition of herein. From the above pleadings, it canno ple of res judicata. The earlier decre the property in dispute was intent present suit is founded on a subsequ attempt of the defendants to enc claim of the plaintiff is ultimately s ed upon evidence during trial. At the stage of deciding an applicati not required to examine the co ade in the plaint. If the plaint disc is not apparent on the face of th In view of the above discussion, the order passed by the learn or rejection of the plaint. Consequently, the present revision hether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No hether reportable : Yes/No t portion and to raise construction of the plaintiff. On the basis of these n of the joint property claiming hi nnot be said that the suit is barred ecree, as pleaded in the plaint itself tentionally kept joint between the sequent cause of action arising from encroach upon the joint property ely sustainable or not is a matter to lication under Order VII Rule 11 CPC e correctness or otherwise of the discloses a cause of action and the f the plaint, the plaint cannot be on, this Court finds no illegality o learned trial Court dismissing th ion petition being devoid of merit i (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE ction these g his arred itself, the from erty. er to CPC, f the d the t be ty or the rit is JITEN SHARMA 2026.03.17 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document