CR-6466-2025 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-6466-2025 Date of decision: 15.09.2025 Najma and others ...Peoners Versus Des Raj and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate for the peoners. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Peoners herein are the defendants in Civil Suit No. CS-655- 2023 tled “Des Raj and others v. Najma and others”, pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bilaspur. They assail the order dated 14.08.2025, whereby their applicaon under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejecon of the plaint was declined and the plainffs-respondents were directed to deposit the requisite amount on or before the next date of hearing. 2. The plainffs-respondents instuted the suit for symbolic possession by pre-empng the sale deed dated 06.06.2023 on payment of sale consideraon of ₹9,50,000/-. Along with the suit, they moved an applicaon under Secon 22 of the Punjab Pre-empon Act, 1913, seeking permission to deposit 1/5th of the pre-empon amount i.e. ₹1,90,000/-. That applicaon, however, remained pending without disposal. A<er filing of the wri>en statement, the defendants moved an applicaon under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejecon of the plaint, which has now been declined. 3. Learned counsel for the peoners contends that irrespecve of the fact, whether the Court disposed of the applicaon or not, the plainffs were bound to deposit 1/5th of the pre-empon money before se>lement of issues as mandated under Secon 22 of the Act. Hence, the impugned order is unsustainable. Yogesh Mehta 2025.09.16 14:23 I agree to specified portions of this document CR-6466-2025 [2] 4. This Court finds no substance in the said contenon. 5. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the plainffs had indeed moved an applicaon for deposing 1/5th of the pre-empon amount along with the suit. The said applicaon was kept pending by the Court and was not disposed of. The trial Court has rightly observed that for the inacon on the part of the Court, no party can be made to suffer. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the trial Court erred in rejecng the defendants’ applicaon under Order VII Rule 11 CPC while simultaneously direcng the plainffs to deposit the requisite amount. 6. In view of the above, this Court finds no ground to interfere. The revision peon is, therefore, dismissed. 15.09.2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No Yogesh Mehta 2025.09.16 14:23 I agree to specified portions of this document