CR-2191-20 IN THE H 288 Suman and a Meenakshi a CORAM: H PRESENT: NIDHI GUP 1. No. 3 and 4 17.01.2023 ( application d VII Rule 11 2. had filed a C effect that th share each and the defe share of th bearing Vas 2023 (O&M) HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HAR and another Versus kshi and others M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH ENT: Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Advocate for Mr. Nitin Sansanwal, Advocate Mr. PS Chauhan, Advocate for Mr. Rahul Sangwan, Advocate I GUPTA, J. The present revision petition h and 4/petitioners herein, seeking set 2023 (Annexure P-9) passed by the le ation dated NIL (Annexure P-7) filed b ule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint, has Brief facts of case are that plain led a Civil Suit No. 141-C dated 13.0 that they are absolute owners in pos in the ancestral joint Hindu fam e defendants have no concern or conn of the plaintiffs in any manner; an g Vasika No. 6991 dated 17.01.201 & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-2191-2023 (O&M) Date of decision: 01.12.2025 ..... Petitioners ..... Respondents NIDHI GUPTA te for the petitioners. vocate for respondents No. 1 and 2. te for respondent No. 3. ocate for respondent No. 4. ition has been filed by defendants ng setting aside of the order dated the learned trial Court whereby the filed by the petitioners under Order , has been dismissed. t plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 and 2, 13.07.2021 for declaration to the in possession to the extent of 1/4th u family as described in the plaint; r connections, whatsoever, with the and the alleged Release Deed 01.2013 allegedly got procured by ants ated the rder the the eed by RISHU KATARIA 2025.12.02 19:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR-2191-20 defendant N and the con set aside; an 10.06.2013 a 2 regarding p null and void is also liable directing the favour of th relief of inju alienating su 3. inter alia, 17.01.2013 favour of h witnessed by Balraj, and 16.01.2013 therein that defendant N 10.06.2013 ( petitioners/ No. 3 and 4 then arisen b 2023 (O&M) ant No. 2 from defendant No. 1 is ab e consequent Mutation No. 2741 dat and that the alleged Gift Deed be 3 allegedly got procured by defend rding part of the land out of the total s nd void; and that the resultant Mutatio liable to the set aside; and for mand ng the defendants to get the above of the plaintiffs to the extent to the of injunction (prohibitory) restraining ting suit land. Learned counsel for the petitio ia, submits that the impugned R 2013 (Annexure P-5) was executed b of his son-Sudhir/defendant No. sed by the plaintiffs - who are the and sisters of defendant No. 2-Sud 2013 (Annexure P-10) was execute that they have supported the said ant No. 2-Sudhir had executed r 2013 (Annexure P-6) of the suit prop / his wife and daughter, who we and 4 in the main suit. It is submitted risen between the husband and wife i.e 1 is absolutely illegal null and void; dated 30.01.2013 is, liable to be eed bearing Vasika No. 1847 dated defendant No. 3 from defendant No. total suit land is also wrong, illegal, utation no. 2784 dated 18.06.2013 r mandatory (permanent) injunction above ancestral land transferred in their shares with consequential raining the defendants from further petitioner/defendants No. 3 and 4, ned Release Deed No.6991 dated cuted by defendant No. 1-Balraj in No. 2. Said Release Deed was the daughters of defendant No. 1- Sudhir. Even an affidavit dated xecuted by the plaintiffs attesting e said Release Deed. Thereafter, uted registered Gift Deed dated property in favour of the present ho were also arrayed as defendants bmitted that however, a dispute had ife i.e. Sudhir and petitioner No. 1- oid; o be ated No. gal, d in ntial ther , ated j in was ated ting fter, ated sent ants had RISHU KATARIA 2025.12.02 19:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR-2191-20 Suman, whic sisters of Sud 4. suit was clea Deed dated and P-6, resp filing the pr filed the pre Rule 11 CP Learned cou (Annexure P aforesaid Re is contended cannot seek Moreover, from the pe aforesaid Re to this effect documents. their signatu However, no come to kno June 2021. I he cannot di facts could n 2023 (O&M) , which led to filing of the present su of Sudhir. Learned counsel for the petitio clearly barred by limitation as, dec dated 17.01.2013 and Gift Deed dated 6, respectively) was being sought after the present suit on 13.07.2021. Acc he present application dated NIL (An CPC for rejection of the plaint ed counsel points out that it had xure P-1) that the plaintiffs have dis aid Release Deed and Gift Deed only tended that merely by cleverly draf t seek to overcome the rigors of ver, as has been pointed out to this Co the perusal of Release Deed that the aid Release Deed; and had also filed effect. It is argued that the plaintiffs ents. They have not disputed the re signatures on the said documents/R ver, now in the present civil suit they to know about the Release Deed and G 021. It is contended that if a person is not dispute the same. Further, learned ould not have been held to be matter o ent suit on dated 13.07.2021 by the petitioners submits that the present declaration in respect of Release d dated 10.06.2013 (Annexures P-5 ht after expiry of 08 years by way of . Accordingly, the petitioners had L (Annexure P-7) under Order VII laint on the ground of limitation. had been averred in the plaint discovered about the execution only in the month of June 2021. It y drafting the plaint, the plaintiffs of the Limitation Act, 1963. this Court and as is patently evident at the plaintiffs had witnessed the filed an affidavit (Annexure P-10) intiffs were the part of the aforesaid the registration, execution and/or ents/Release Deed and Affidavit. t they are contending that they have and Gift Deed only in the month of rson is a party to the document, then earned counsel submits that all these atter of evidence as from the overall the sent ease 5 y of had VII tion. laint tion It tiffs 963. dent the 10) said avit. ave th of then hese erall RISHU KATARIA 2025.12.02 19:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR-2191-20 reading of t themselves, Therefore, it suit is not ma 5. Hon’ble Su Prasanna S wherein it is 6. in subsequen connected a others deci another vs. 2209437. 7. and 2 vehem counsel for 2023 (O&M) g of the plaint and documents place elves, it was very clear that they were fore, it was not open for them to dispu not maintainable. In support, learned counsel r Supreme Court in Raghwendra nna Singh (Dead) by LRs: Law in it is held as under:- “Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order 14, Rule 2 – Suit barred plaint – Plaintiff filed suit for d showy – Plaintiff specifically a by him and his brother in 198 brother claimed gift deed as sho deed is registered document – for partition in year 2001 again plaintiff was party as defendant in Partition Suit was served up – It cannot be said that gift plaintiff on 10.04.2003 – Application submitted by defe allowed.” The said view has been followe sequent judgments in Civil Appeal N cted appeal, titled as C.S. Ramasw decided on 30.09.2022; and in er vs. Nasyam Jamal Saheb and ot Per Contra, learned counsel fo vehemently opposes the submissions a el for the petitioners and submits that placed on record by the plaintiffs y were party to the said documents. dispute the same. Thus, the present nsel relies upon judgment of the endra Sharan Singh vs. Ram Law Finder Doc Id # 1395205, 1908, Order 7, Rule 11(d) and arred by limitation – Rejection of for declaration that gift deed was lly admitted execution of gift deed 1981 – Neither plaintiff not his s showy for nearly 22 years – Gift – Defendant had instituted suit against his brothers to which even dant – Summon and copy of plaint d upon plaintiff in year 2001 itself gift deed came to knowledge of Suit barred by limitation – defendant for rejection of plaint ollowed by the Hon’ble Apex Court peal No. 500 and 2022 and other amaswamy vs. V.K. Senthil and in Ramisetty Venkatanna and nd others: Law Finder Doc Id # sel for plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 sions advanced on behalf of learned ts that all the contentions raised by tiffs ents. sent the am , nd of as ed his ift uit en int elf of int ourt ther and and Id # o. 1 rned d by RISHU KATARIA 2025.12.02 19:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR-2191-20 learned coun determined 8. No. 1 and application d read with Se plaint only o said applicat 02.12.2021 ( preferred be second/prese accordingly 9. I have heard case file. plaintiffs/res 10. It has been c that the pla execution o respectively) and/or their plaint (Anne plaintiffs hav 2023 (O&M) d counsel for the petitioners are matt ined without leading of evidence. It is further pointed out by lea and 2/plaintiffs that earlier the p ation dated 19.08.2021 (Annexure P ith Section 151 CPC whereby they only on the ground of insufficient Cou pplication was dismissed by the learne 2021 (Annexure P-4) against which red before this Court by the petition /present application for rejection of p ingly prayed that the present revision No other argument is raised on heard learned counsel for the parties I find merit in the submissio ffs/respondents No. 1 and 2. The facts of the case have alrea been contended on behalf of the petiti he plaintiffs, in their plaint (Annex tion of Release Deed and Gift Dee tively); and they have also admitte their signatures on the said docume (Annexure P-1) shows that in Para ffs have categorically averred as follow “Para No. 4 (i) to (v) e matter of evidence and cannot be learned counsel for respondents the petitioners have preferred an ure P-2) under Order VII Rule 11 they have sought rejection of the nt Court fees. It is submitted that the arned trial Court vide order dated hich no revision petition has been etitioners. It is contended that the n of plaint is not maintainable. It is ision petition may be dismissed. ed on behalf of either of the parties. arties and carefully gone through the missions advanced on behalf of e already been noted here-in-above. e petitioners/defendants No. 3 and 4 Annexure P-1) have admitted the ft Deed (Annexures P-5 and P-6, dmitted the registration, execution ocuments. However, perusal of the Para No. 4 (vi) of the plaint, the follows: - xxx xxx xxx t be ents e 11 the t the ated een the It is . the f of nd 4 6, tion the the RISHU KATARIA 2025.12.02 19:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR-2191-20 11. further plead (Annexures Thereafter, t 12. under Order seen. The co cleverly dra stipulations limitation is contentions r fact that the signatures e leading of ev basis of bald 13. position in l only averme made in the 2023 (O&M) (vi) It is pertinent to submit h of the plaintiffs goes the allege the release deed of defendant them in the year 2013 by misrepresentation upon the pl identification purposes in KCC that defendants No. 1 and 2 loan/KCC over the land and a put their respective signature contents of the alleged docum about any alleged release deed. In para 5 of the plaint (Annex r pleaded that they came to now of the s P-5 and P-6, respectively) only after, the present suit was instituted on It is well entrenched position Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only avermen The contention of learned counsel for ly drafting the plaint, the plaintiffs tions of the Limitation Act, is m tion is a mixed question of law an tions raised by learned counsel for the at the Release Deed (Annexure P- ures etc. of the plaintiffs can only b g of evidence. The said factors cannot bald averments made on behalf of th At the risk of repetition, it is r n in law that in an application filed u verments made in the plaint are to be in the written statement cannot be con mit here that as far as the memory lleged signatures of plaintiffs over ant No. 2 has been obtained by by way of playing fraud and plaintiffs under the pretext of CC loan etc. in good faith stating 2 want to obtain some kind of nd accordingly the plaintiffs have tures without going through the cument nor they were ever told eed.” (Annexure P-1), the plaintiffs have of the Release Deed and Gift Deed ) only in the month of June 2021. ted on 13.07.2021. sition in law that in an application erments made in the plaint are to be el for the petitioners that merely by intiffs cannot seek to obviate the is misconceived as, question of and fact. Needless, to say the for the petitioners with regard to the -5) bears the photographs and nly be determined upon trial after cannot be ascertained merely on the lf of the petitioners. it is reiterated that it is undisputed filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC e to be seen. Even the submissions be considered at the time of dealing ry er by nd of ng of ve he ld ave 021. tion o be y by the of the the and after the uted PC ions ling RISHU KATARIA 2025.12.02 19:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR-2191-20 with the ap made on beh correctness o The Hon'ble Housing an Finder Doc of the cont application u made in the Again, in Ka SCC 661, Rule 11 CPC purpose, the evidence can Bench judgm Totala vs. H 1865777, w plaint for th court needs defence take the defendan plaint under as under:- 2023 (O&M) he application under Order VII Rul on behalf of the petitioners are mixed tness of which can be established on on'ble Supreme Court in numerous ng and Industries Ltd. vs. Ashok r Doc ID # 2406865, has repeatedly he controversy, can be examined at ation under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; in the plaint would be relevant for in Kamala and others vs. K.T. Eshw the Hon'ble Supreme Court opine 1 CPC, only the averments in the plai se, there cannot be any addition or ce can be looked into. Reference may judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Cou s. Hemant Vithal Kamat & Oth wherein it has been held that “ r the suit being barred by any law u eeds to be guided by the avermen taken....”It has been categorically h endant as defence cannot be taken i under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Relevan “16. Order 7 Rule 11(d) of C shall be rejected "where the su in the plaint to be barred by II Rule 11 CPC. The submissions xed questions of fact and law, the ed only upon leading of evidence. erous judgments including Eldeco shok Vidyarthi and others: Law edly held that no evidence, or merits ned at the stage of deciding an CPC; and that only the averments for invoking Order VII Rule CPC. . Eshwara Sa & Others, (2008) 12 t opined that for invoking Order VII he plaint would be relevant. For this ion or subtraction. No amount of ce may also be made to three-Judge e Court in Srihari Hanumandas Others: Law Finder Doc ID # “10 (iii)...In order to reject a law under Order 7 Rule 11(d), the rments in the plaint and not the cally held that the grounds taken by aken into account while rejecting a elevant part of the said judgment is of CPC provides that the plaint e suit appears from the statement by any law". Hence, in order to ions , the nce. eco aw erits an ents PC. ) 12 VII this t of dge das D # a he he n by ng a nt is int nt to RISHU KATARIA 2025.12.02 19:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR-2191-20 14. the present/s Rule 11 CP already exha 11 CPC by w which was 02.12.2021 petitioners to have again grounds. Th that plaintiff 15. no ground is 16. 17. 01.12.2025 rishu 2023 (O&M) decide whether the suit is ba statement in the plaint which w Court while deciding such an regard only to the statements i is barred by any law must be de in the plaint and it is not open t of any other material including case….” Furthermore, the petitioners ha esent/second application dated NIL (A 11 CPC was not maintainable. Adm y exhausted their remedy of filing app C by way of their first application date was dismissed by the learned tr 2021 (Annexure P-4). Admittedly, n ners to challenge the order (Annexur again filed the present application ( ds. The contentions raised by learned aintiffs have no cause of action, is with In view of the above noted fac und is made out to exercise the revisio Dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, s 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable is barred by any law, it is the ch will have to be construed. The h an application must have due nts in the plaint. Whether the suit be determined from the statements en to decide the issue on the basis uding the written statement in the (Emphasis added) ers have also unable to dispute that IL (Annexure P-7) under Order VII e. Admittedly, the petitioners had application under Order VII Rule on dated 19.08.2021 (Annexure P-2) ed trial Court vide order dated dly, no revision was filed by the nnexure P-4); rather the petitioners tion (Annexure P-7) on the same learned counsel for the petitioners, without merit. factual and legal position, I find revisional jurisdiction of this Court. any, shall also stand disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE ned Yes/No Yes/No he he ue uit nts sis he that VII had ule 2) ated the ners ame , find RISHU KATARIA 2025.12.02 19:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.