2025:HHC:32606 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 316 of 2024 Decided on: 19.09.2025 Shri Dharam Paul and others … Petitioners Versus Shri Shameer Puri and others .… Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ___________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners : Mr. G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate for respondent No. 1. : Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General for respondent- State. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by learned Trial Court dated 23.04.2024, in terms whereof, an application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioners herein has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court. 2. Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 and having carefully gone through the impugned order as well as other documents appended with the petition, this Court does not find any infirmity in 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:32606 the order under challenge. 3. Record demonstrates that the plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the suit land and is entitled to remain as owner in possession thereof in future as well and defendants No. 1 to 5 are strangers to the suit land and they have no right, title or interest thereupon and the alleged sale deed document dated 11.11.2011, which was executed by defendant No. 1 showing to have purchased a part of the suit land, was null and void and was a result of fraud played upon the vendor being holder of General Power of Attorney on behalf of the plaintiff by procuring a forged agricultural certificate from defendant No. 6 and by swearing in false affidavit etc. 4. In nutshell, the case of the plaintiff is that he was serving in Indian Navy for a considerable time and on account of exigency of his service, he was posted at sensitive posts. As he was not in a position to look after his land and also to pursue/defend cases instituted by defendant No. 1 against him, he gave a General Power of Attorney to his father for looking after his land and to pursue the cases filed against him. According to the plaintiff, during the pendency of said cases, defendant No. 1 approached the father of the plaintiff to resolve the disputes and requested for execution of a sale deed of some land in lieu of defendant’s land and conveyed 3 2025:HHC:32606 that the proceedings under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, which were pending against defendants already stood dropped and defendant No. 1 is now competent to purchase the land. The father of the plaintiff got swayed by the request of the said defendants and bonafidely in order to resolve the dispute, he executed the sale deed qua some part of the suit land. Defendant No. 1 got the sale deed executed by knowing fully well that proceedings under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act were not yet dropped. He got prepared forged agricultural certificates from defendant No.6 and also filed false affidavits and thus played a fraud upon the holder of the General Power of Attorney of the plaintiff and got the sale deed registered. Defendants remained silent for a considerable time. The plaintiff after being relieved from the Indian Navy came to his residential house situated in Mohal Jassur. At that time, he was not aware about the execution of the alleged sale deed, however, in the year 2005, when the plaintiff cut five Eucalyptus trees from the suit land, then defendants No. 1 to 5 came to the spot and threatened the plaintiff that they will not allow him to lift logs of said Eucalyptus trees on the ground that a portion of the suit land stood purchased by defendant No.1 and they were going to take possession of the suit land by moving an application for partition of the suit land. On this, 4 2025:HHC:32606 the plaintiff came to know of the fraud that was played by defendant No. 1 and it is in this backdrop that he filed the suit. In this suit, an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the defendants No. 1 to 6 before learned Trial Court for the rejection of the plaint inter alia on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation and the plaint did not disclose any cause of action and the averments made in the plaint were absurd, disseminating, malicious and showing hostile motive of the plaintiff. Said application has been rejected by the learned Trial Court by returning the findings that a perusal of the plaint demonstrates that from paras 6 to 14 thereof, the plaintiff has dwelled as to how the cause of action had accrued to file the suit. Learned Trial Court held that it is settled law that for deciding an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, only the averments made in the plaint were germane and as according to the plaintiff, the right to sue had accrued to him on 21.03.2024 and thereafter on 22.02.2024, therefore, in these circumstances, it could not be said that the suit was barred by limitation as point of limitation is required to be decided alongwith other Issues between the parties which were required to be decided on the basis of evidence led by the parties. 5. Having perused the plaint carefully, this Court concurs 5 2025:HHC:32606 that the findings returned by the learned Trial Court. There is a cause of action pleaded in the plaint by the plaintiff and he has also averred therein as to how the suit was within limitation. 6. It is settled law that for the purpose of deciding an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court is not to travel beyond the plaint. The Court has to adjudicate for the purpose of deciding an application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whether the suit can be construed to be within limitation in light of the averments made in the plaint. 7. Herein, the suit has been filed in the year 2024 and the cause of action is also stated to have been accrued firstly on 21.02.2024 and thereafter on 22.02.2024. The Court is not suggesting whether the cause of action actually accrued on the said dates but as this is the stand of the plaintiff and the suit has been filed within limitation as from the date of cause of action mentioned therein and further as the cause of action has been pleaded in the plaint, which has led to the filing of the case, the dismissal of the application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the learned Trial Court cannot be faulted with. The defendants can always demonstrate by way of written statement that the contentions of the plaintiff are meritless and the respective 6 2025:HHC:32606 contentions of the parties can be tested by the learned Trial Court in the course of trial. However, it would not have been in the interest of justice, in the facts of this case, to have had rejected the plaint at the initial stage itself. Accordingly, in view of above discussion, as this Court does not find any merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 19, 2025 (narender)