2025:HHC:29462 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 694 of 2019 Decided on : 30.08.2025 Shri Pankaj Kumar and others …Petitioners Versus Shri Govind Singh Pathania and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioners have assailed order dated 18.10.2019, passed by learned Trial Court, in CMA No. 220/2019, in Civil Suit No. 86/2019, in terms whereof, the application filed by the petitioners under Order VII, Rule 11(a) (b)(d) of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’), has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:29462 the impugned order is per se bad in the eyes of law for the reason that the learned Trial Court has erred in not appreciating that as the plaint neither did disclose any cause of action and further as it was barred by law, it was liable to be rejected. He further submitted that the cause of action, if any, accrued somewhere in the year 1977, 1983 and 1986 and as this ex- facie demonstrated that the suit was time barred, learned Trial Court erred in rejecting the application by returning the findings, as are contained in the impugned order. 3. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order, for the reason that perusal thereof demonstrates that the reasonings given by the learned Trial Court do justify the rejection of the application. He further submitted that it is settled law that in the course of the adjudication of an application filed under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court has to confine itself to the plaint as well as documents appended therewith, however, the endeavour of the defendants, as is evident from the contents of the application filed under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC was to have the plaint dismissed on the basis of the 3 2025:HHC:29462 defence or objections to the said plaint of the defendants. Accordingly, he prayed that as there is no infirmity in the impugned order, the present petition be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Senior Counsel for the respondents and have also carefully gone through the impugned order as well as the petition. 5. The plaint is appended with the petition as Annexure P-1. A perusal thereof demonstrates that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was to the effect that defendants No.1 to 4 were non-agriculturists and were/are not legally entitled to the purchase of the suit land along-with shops, situated in Mohal and Mouza Jassur, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P., and accordingly, a declaration was sought with consequential of relief of permanent injunction, together with mandatory injunction as described in detail in the heading of the plaint to the effect that the sale deed which was registered in favour of the defendants illegally, be declared as null and void and the property be ordered to be vested in the State of Himachal Pradesh. 4 2025:HHC:29462 6. In terms of the averments made in the plaint, the property was owned by the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs. It is further averred in the plaint that in the month of July, 2019, the plaintiffs came to know about the execution of a sale deed qua the suit land in favour of the defendants on the basis of a forged and fabricated Agricultural Certificate and false affidavit sworn by defendant No.1 to get the said sale deed registered. According to the plaintiffs, defendants No.1 to 4 being non-agriculturists, could not have purchased agricultural land on the basis of wrong revenue record by flouting the orders that stood passed by the Revenue Authorities. It is further averred in the plaint that the defendants in the month of August, 2019 started proclaiming that they shall forcibly change the nature of the land so purchased, purportedly in violation of the provisions of Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 and also started making arrangements by collection of construction material for raising construction and threatened to demolish the old dilapidated shops/staircase existing at the spot, which was constructed by the plaintiffs. On these basis, it stands averred 5 2025:HHC:29462 in the plaint that the cause of action accrued to the plaintiffs, firstly on 31.07.2019 and thereafter on 02.08.2019; and accordingly, they had approached the Court with the prayers, as have been referred to by me hereinabove. 7. In terms of the application filed under Order VII, Rule 11 (a)(b)(d) of the CPC by the petitioners herein, as per them, the plaint was liable to be rejected, inter alia, on the ground that the plaintiffs had got no concern or connection with the suit land and that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action in favour of the plaintiffs. It was also averred in the application that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessity parties and the order of the Settlement Collector relied upon by the plaintiffs, was pending adjudication by way of an Appeal before the learned Divisional Commissioner. 8. In terms of the impugned order, this application has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court by, inter alia, returning the following findings:- “8. It may be observed at this juncture that the sale deed under challenge in the present case has been executed on 30.07.2019. The plaintiff has claimed that a part of his own land has been included as subject matter 6 2025:HHC:29462 of the sale in the said sale deed and correction proceedings qua the same (land) are still pending before the court of Divisional Commissioner, Kangra. Thus, the plaintiff, as per his pleadings, is certainly entitled to seek legal remedy of declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction as claimed by him, as the impugned sale deed has cast clouds over his right as well as title over the land which he claims to be under his ownership. Thus, it cannot be said that the plaint of the plaintiff does not disclose any cause of action. At this stage, the court has no concern about the likelihood or unlikelihood of the plaintiff succeeding in his case. The court is concerned only with the pleadings of the plaintiff which in the present case does disclose cause of action in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, the prayer of the defendants for rejection of the plaint under order 7 Rule 11 (a) CPC is not tenable.” 9. This Court is of the considered view that the findings returned by the learned Trial Court while dismissing the application, call for no interference. It is settled law that in the course of the adjudication of an application filed under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court has to take into consideration the plaint and the documents appended 7 2025:HHC:29462 therewith. 10. Having carefully gone through the plaint, this Court is of the considered view that a cause of action has been culled out therein by the plaintiffs. This Court is not suggesting that whether the said cause of action has merit or not, however, as a bare perusal of the plaint demonstrates that there is a cause of action, with which the plaintiffs have approached the Court, obviously, the plaint can’t be dismissed under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC. As far as the issue of limitation is concerned, obviously, the same being a mixed question of law and facts, the defendants can always take an objection with regard to the maintainability of the suit on the ground of limitation and the learned Trial Court may frame an issue qua the same, which can be decided on the strength of the evidence that the parties may lead in support of their respective contentions. 10. The other pleas, as have been referred in the application, obviously, being the defence of the defendants/applicants, were not supposed to be looked into or gone into by the learned Trial Court at the time of deciding an application filed under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC. Issue of 8 2025:HHC:29462 non-joinder of necessary parties and the effect of the pendency of certain revenue proceedings before the Appellate Authority, are points which are to be brought to the notice of the learned Trial Court by way of written statement by the opposite party and effect thereof subsequently has to be seen by the learned Trial Court during the course of the trial of the Civil Suit. However, these issues are not to be taken into consideration in the course of the adjudication of an application filed under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC. 11. Therefore, in the light of the above observations, as this Court finds no infirmity in order dated 18.10.2019, passed by the learned Trial Court, this petition is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Parties through counsel are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 22.09.2025. Record, if any, be forthwith returned to the learned Trial Court. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 30, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)