IN THE HI 131 Darshan Singh M/s Shri Hanu CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, of India is filed 05.11.2024 (A Division), Yam petitioner und 2. plaintiffs/resp (Annexure P1 possession of suit of the pla under Order 7 sought prima affixed the pro of the petition E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA ingh Vs. anuman Metal Industries & Others HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advoc Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, Advocat for the petitioner. *** PTA, J. Present petition under Art filed by the defendant seeking sett 4 (Annexure P4) passed by the Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri whereby under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been Learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 8 herein have P1) for mandatory injunction n of the suit property. The petitione plaintiff by way of application date er 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 imarily on three grounds: a) that e proper Court fee of suit property itioner is unregistered and is hit by S p. 1 D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-96-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.01.2025 ...Petitioner(s) hers ...Respondent(s) NIDHI GUPTA vocate for ocate r Article 227 of the Constitution setting aside of the order dated the learned Civil Judge (Junior reby the application filed by the been dismissed. the petitioner submits that the ave filed a suit dated 12.07.2019 ion and also sought relief of ioner sought rejection of the said dated 13.11.2019 (Annexure P2) 151 CPC. The said rejection was that the respondents have not rty; b) that the partnership firm by Section 69 of the Partnership 4 SUNENA 2025.01.22 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Act; and c) tha the date of pu in July 2019 a learned couns have sought r neither valued that the plaint less than the application fil have been dism 3. 4. perused the ca 5. the stage of d averments ma in numerous j Ashok Vidyart held that no stage of decid 11 CPC; and th for invoking O & Others” 200 that the defendant is in possession f purchase in November 2005. How 19 after more than 14 years which unsel for the petitioner submits th ht relief of possession of immovab lued the same nor paid the Court fe laintiffs were required to pay Court the Collector rate. It is subm n filed by the petitioner under Ord dismissed. No other argument is raise I have heard learned cou e case file in great detail. It is an irrevocably establi of deciding an application under O s made in the plaint are to be seen. us judgments including “Eldeco Ho yarthi & Others” Law Finder Doc ID no evidence or merits of the controv eciding rejection of a plaint in an ap d that only the averments made in g Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. In “Kamala & 2008 (12) SCC 661, it is held that in p. 2 ssion of the suit properties since However, the suit has been filed hich is barred by limitation. The s that the plaintiffs/respondents ovable urban property but have rt fee as required. It is submitted ourt fee on the market value not ubmitted that accordingly the Order 7 Rule 11 CPC could not aised on behalf of the petitioner. counsel for the petitioner and tablished position in law that at r Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only the een. The Hon’ble Supreme Court Housing and Industries Ltd. Vs. oc ID # 2406865, has repeatedly troversy can be examined at the n application under Order 7 Rule e in the plaint would be relevant ala & Others Vs. K.T. Eshwara Sa at in an application under Order 4 SUNENA 2025.01.22 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7 Rule 11 CPC, would not be would not dec 6. sought rejectio respondents h partnership fir of the Partner say, the said a be permitted 11 CPC. 7. submitted tha that he presse ground of Cou Partnership Ac this belated s learned trial C 8. Court fee is no in this regard as follows:- CPC, no evidence can be look into; i t be within the realm of the Court decide any evidence or disputed qu In the present case, adm jection of the plaint on the above sa ts have not affixed the proper Co ip firm of the petitioner is unregiste tnership Act; and c) the suit is barre aid assertions would require leadin ted while adjudicating upon an app At this stage, learned cou that he withdraws his pleadings resses the application under Order Court fee and not on the other two ip Act and limitation. However, the ed stage and ought to have been ial Court in the first instance. Moreover, even the plea o is not tenable. Relevant observatio ard are contained in Para 7 of the “7. So far as the plea that the advalorem Court fee as they are p. 3 to; issue on merits of the matter urt at that stage; and the Court d question of fact or law. admittedly, the petitioner has ve said three grounds that i.e. a) r Court fee of suit property; b) gistered and is hit by Section 69 barred by limitation. Needless to ading of evidence which cannot application under Order 7 Rule counsel for the petitioner has ngs qua the other grounds and rder 7 Rule 11 CPC only on the two grounds of Section 69 of the the same cannot be permitted at en made, if at all, before the ea of the petitioner in respect of ations of the learned trial Court impugned order, which reads the plaintiffs have not affixed y are seeking possession of the 4 SUNENA 2025.01.22 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document fo 9. 10. 13.01.2025 Sunena Whether spea Whether repo immovable property is concerned the plaintiffs have filed the prese mandatory injunction on the ave were given license to occupy the plaintiffs from defendants and by terminated the license despite hand over vacant possession constrained them to file the prese taken by plaintiffs in their plain plaintiffs have filed suit for manda for possession, as such and he plaintiffs cannot be said to be insu In view of the above, the Pending application(s) if an peaking/reasoned: Yes/No eportable: Yes/No p. 4 rned, it is important to note that resent suit seeking a decree for averments that the defendants the premises purchased by the d by giving notice, plaintiffs have pite which defendants had not sion to the plaintiffs, which present suit. Going by averments plaint, it is apparent that the andatory injunction and not suit d hence, Court fee affixed by insufficient.” he present petition is dismissed. if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 4 SUNENA 2025.01.22 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document