IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 121 CR-7770-2025 Date of Decision.:29.01.2026 Kulbir Nain …..Pe--oner Vs. Pardeep Kumar and Another .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Sunil Kumar Dhanda, Advocate for the peoner. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present peon arises out of a suit for recovery bearing No. CS-1257-2018 tled Pardeep Kumar v. Balaji Bhatha Udyog & another, pending before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hisar. The suit has been instuted by the plainff-respondent Pardeep Kumar against Balaji Bhatha Udyog, arrayed as defendant No.1, and Kulbir Nain, arrayed as defendant No.2. The plainff has specifically pleaded that defendant No.2 is the proprietor/authorized person of defendant No.1 and was responsible for the transacon in queson. 2. The peoner herein (defendant No.2) moved an applicaon under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejecon of the plaint on the ground that he was not the proprietor of defendant No.1 and had been wrongly impleaded. The learned Trial Court, vide order dated 12.09.2025, dismissed the said applicaon. The said order is under challenge in the present peon. 3. Learned counsel for the peoner contends that since the peoner has no concern with Balaji Bhatha Udyog, connuance of the suit against him amounts to abuse of process of law and, therefore, the plaint deserves to be rejected. 4. The submission is wholly misconceived. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.01.30 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-7770-2025 5. The scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC is limited and well-seAled. While considering an applicaon for rejecon of plaint, the Court is required to look only at the averments contained in the plaint and the documents relied upon therein. The defence set up by the defendant or the correctness of the plainff’s allegaons is wholly irrelevant at this stage. 6. A perusal of the plaint reveals a categorical asseron by the plainff that defendant No.2, namely the peoner herein, was the proprietor of defendant No.1 and had purchased husk from the plainff on a credit basis, giving rise to the liability sought to be enforced. These pleadings, on their face, disclose a cause of acon against the peoner. 7. Whether the peoner was, in fact, the proprietor of defendant No.1 or whether he had any role in the transacons alleged by the plainff is a disputed queson of fact, which can only be adjudicated upon aEer pares lead evidence. Such issues cannot be gone into while exercising jurisdicon under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 8. Mere denial by the peoner of his status or involvement cannot form the basis for rejecon of the plaint. Accepng such a contenon would amount to permiGng the defendant to have the plaint rejected on the strength of his defence, which is impermissible in law. 9. The learned Trial Court has rightly held that the issue raised by the peoner is a maAer for trial and not a ground for rejecon of the plaint at the threshold. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or jurisdiconal error warranng interference by this Court. 10. The peon is, therefore, devoid of merit and is dismissed. ( DEEPAK GUPTA ) JUDGE January 29, 2026 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.01.30 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document