CR-688-2025 (O&M) 251 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Varinder Pal Singh and Another Smt. Simarjit Kaur and Others CORAM : HON'BLE M Present: Mr. Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate for Mr. Akshit Pathania, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Nimanyu Gautam, Advocate for the respondents. MANDEEP PANNU 1. By way of the present revision petition, the petitioners/ defendants (hereinafter referred to as the ‘petitioners’) correctness of the order dated 07.12.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kapurthala, whereby their application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘CPC’) rejection of the plaint has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the trial Court erred in dismissing their application submitted that the plaintiff has sought only a declara the suit property without claiming the consequential relief of possession. Since she is admittedly not in possession, the suit for bare declaration is barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. It consequential relief was required to be valued ad valorem on the market value of (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR Reserved Pronounced on: Varinder Pal Singh and Another VERSUS Smt. Simarjit Kaur and Others CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate for Mr. Akshit Pathania, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Nimanyu Gautam, Advocate for the respondents. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. By way of the present revision petition, the petitioners/ (hereinafter referred to as the ‘petitioners’) correctness of the order dated 07.12.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kapurthala, whereby their application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘CPC’) jection of the plaint has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the trial Court erred in dismissing their application, without dealing with all the grounds raised. submitted that the plaintiff has sought only a declara the suit property without claiming the consequential relief of possession. Since she is admittedly not in possession, the suit for bare declaration is barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. It is argued that the consequential relief was required to be valued ad valorem on the market value of -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-688-2025 (O&M) Reserved on :- 11.08.2025 Pronounced on:-12.08.2025 ....Petitioners ....Respondents MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate for Mr. Akshit Pathania, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Nimanyu Gautam, Advocate for the respondents. By way of the present revision petition, the petitioners/contesting (hereinafter referred to as the ‘petitioners’) have challenged the correctness of the order dated 07.12.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kapurthala, whereby their application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘CPC’) Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the trial Court erred without dealing with all the grounds raised. It is submitted that the plaintiff has sought only a declaration of ownership in respect of the suit property without claiming the consequential relief of possession. Since she is admittedly not in possession, the suit for bare declaration is barred under Section argued that the suit being for declaration with consequential relief was required to be valued ad valorem on the market value of - contesting have challenged the correctness of the order dated 07.12.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kapurthala, whereby their application under Order VII Rule 11 for Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the trial Court erred It is tion of ownership in respect of the suit property without claiming the consequential relief of possession. Since she is admittedly not in possession, the suit for bare declaration is barred under Section suit being for declaration with consequential relief was required to be valued ad valorem on the market value of TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.21 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-688-2025 (O&M) the property, and fixed court fee was insufficient. learned counsel for the petitioner is that dated 18.04.1995, and the predecessor 26.01.2004. The suit, having been filed after nearly 20 years, is hopelessly time barred under Article 58 of the Limitation Act. 3. Reliance was placed on Educational Charitable Society v. Ponniamman Educational Trust, MLJ 601], to argue that when the plaint discloses no cause of action, is undervalued, or is barred by law, the Court must reject it under Order CPC. 4. It was contended that the trial Court wrongly held that the plaintiff is not required to seek possession since she only intends to remove a cloud over her title, whereas the pleadings themselves show that the defendants are exclusive possession. objections raised before the Trial Court. No speaking order was passed by the learned trial Court. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff supports the impugned order and submits that there is no illegality in it. On the issue of limitation, it is urged that the trial Court rightly held it to be a mixed question of law and fact which cannot be adjudicated at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. is further contended that the plaintiff has claimed ownership and joint possession to the extent of ¼ share in the estate of her father, on the basis of inheritance. Being a co-sharer, the law presumes her to be in joint possession unless there is a clear ouster, and therefore there is no requirement to seek separate relief of possession. (O&M) the property, and fixed court fee was insufficient. learned counsel for the petitioner is that plaintiff has bas dated 18.04.1995, and the predecessor-in-interest, Joginder Singh, died on 26.01.2004. The suit, having been filed after nearly 20 years, is hopelessly time barred under Article 58 of the Limitation Act. Reliance was placed on Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society v. Ponniamman Educational Trust, , to argue that when the plaint discloses no cause of action, is undervalued, or is barred by law, the Court must reject it under Order It was contended that the trial Court wrongly held that the plaintiff is not required to seek possession since she only intends to remove a cloud over her title, whereas the pleadings themselves show that the defendants are exclusive possession. Learned trial Court failed to consider the above objections raised before the Trial Court. No speaking order was passed by the learned trial Court. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff supports the impugned and submits that there is no illegality in it. On the issue of limitation, it is urged that the trial Court rightly held it to be a mixed question of law and fact which cannot be adjudicated at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. is further contended that the plaintiff has claimed ownership and joint possession to the extent of ¼ share in the estate of her father, on the basis of inheritance. sharer, the law presumes her to be in joint possession unless there is a ouster, and therefore there is no requirement to seek separate relief of -2- the property, and fixed court fee was insufficient. Further the contention of the plaintiff has based her claim on a Will interest, Joginder Singh, died on 26.01.2004. The suit, having been filed after nearly 20 years, is hopelessly time urch of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society v. Ponniamman Educational Trust, [2012 (5) , to argue that when the plaint discloses no cause of action, is undervalued, or is barred by law, the Court must reject it under Order VII Rule 11 It was contended that the trial Court wrongly held that the respondent/ plaintiff is not required to seek possession since she only intends to remove a cloud over her title, whereas the pleadings themselves show that the defendants are Learned trial Court failed to consider the above-said objections raised before the Trial Court. No speaking order was passed by the Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff supports the impugned and submits that there is no illegality in it. On the issue of limitation, it is urged that the trial Court rightly held it to be a mixed question of law and fact which cannot be adjudicated at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. is further contended that the plaintiff has claimed ownership and joint possession to the extent of ¼ share in the estate of her father, on the basis of inheritance. sharer, the law presumes her to be in joint possession unless there is a ouster, and therefore there is no requirement to seek separate relief of - Further the contention of the ed her claim on a Will interest, Joginder Singh, died on 26.01.2004. The suit, having been filed after nearly 20 years, is hopelessly time- urch of Christ Charitable Trust and 2012 (5) , to argue that when the plaint discloses no cause of action, is VII Rule 11 respondent/ plaintiff is not required to seek possession since she only intends to remove a cloud over her title, whereas the pleadings themselves show that the defendants are in said objections raised before the Trial Court. No speaking order was passed by the Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff supports the impugned and submits that there is no illegality in it. On the issue of limitation, it is urged that the trial Court rightly held it to be a mixed question of law and fact which cannot be adjudicated at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. It is further contended that the plaintiff has claimed ownership and joint possession to the extent of ¼ share in the estate of her father, on the basis of inheritance. sharer, the law presumes her to be in joint possession unless there is a ouster, and therefore there is no requirement to seek separate relief of TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.21 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-688-2025 (O&M) 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and record with their able assistance 7. The scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC is well of deciding an application thereunder, the Court is required to look only at the averments in the plaint and the documents filed therewith. The defence taken by the defendants is irrelevant at that stage. A plaint can be rejected only if, on t face of it does not disclo valuation is not corrected within stamped and the defect is not cured (clause c 1. On the ground of limitation: A plaint can be rejected as barred by limitation under clause (d) only if the bar is apparent from the plaint itself. Where determination of limitation requires examination of facts, evidence, or mixed questions of law and as when the right to sue accrued, whether there was any acknowledgment, or continuous possession case, the plea that the suit is barred by limitation is based on disputed facts regarding accrual of cause of action and alleged ouster, which will require evidence. The trial Court, therefore, rightly refused to reject the plaint on this ground. 2. On the ground of non In law, a co property unless there is a clear and unequivocal act of ouster by the other co owners. In the present plaint, the plaintiff has claimed joint possession as a co Thus, a simpliciter suit for declaration coupled wi maintainable without claiming consequential relief of possession. (O&M) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and record with their able assistance. The scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC is well of deciding an application thereunder, the Court is required to look only at the averments in the plaint and the documents filed therewith. The defence taken by the defendants is irrelevant at that stage. A plaint can be rejected only if, on t does not disclose a cause of action (clause a); it valuation is not corrected within time allowed (clause b) stamped and the defect is not cured (clause c) or it On the ground of limitation: A plaint can be rejected as barred by limitation under clause (d) only if the bar is apparent from the plaint itself. Where determination of limitation requires examination of facts, evidence, or mixed questions of law and as when the right to sue accrued, whether there was any acknowledgment, or continuous possession, the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold. In the present case, the plea that the suit is barred by limitation is based on disputed facts rding accrual of cause of action and alleged ouster, which will require evidence. The trial Court, therefore, rightly refused to reject the plaint on this On the ground of non-claiming of relief of possession In law, a co-owner is deemed to be in joint possession of the entire property unless there is a clear and unequivocal act of ouster by the other co owners. In the present plaint, the plaintiff has claimed joint possession as a co Thus, a simpliciter suit for declaration coupled wi maintainable without claiming consequential relief of possession. -3- I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the The scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC is well-settled. For the purposes of deciding an application thereunder, the Court is required to look only at the averments in the plaint and the documents filed therewith. The defence taken by the defendants is irrelevant at that stage. A plaint can be rejected only if, on t se a cause of action (clause a); it is undervalued and the time allowed (clause b), it is insufficiently ) or it is barred by any law (clause d). A plaint can be rejected as barred by limitation under clause (d) only if the bar is apparent from the plaint itself. Where determination of limitation requires examination of facts, evidence, or mixed questions of law and fact, such as when the right to sue accrued, whether there was any acknowledgment, or the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold. In the present case, the plea that the suit is barred by limitation is based on disputed facts rding accrual of cause of action and alleged ouster, which will require evidence. The trial Court, therefore, rightly refused to reject the plaint on this claiming of relief of possession: be in joint possession of the entire property unless there is a clear and unequivocal act of ouster by the other co owners. In the present plaint, the plaintiff has claimed joint possession as a co-heir. Thus, a simpliciter suit for declaration coupled with joint possession is maintainable without claiming consequential relief of possession. - have gone through the the purposes of deciding an application thereunder, the Court is required to look only at the averments in the plaint and the documents filed therewith. The defence taken by the defendants is irrelevant at that stage. A plaint can be rejected only if, on the is undervalued and the is insufficiently is barred by any law (clause d). A plaint can be rejected as barred by limitation under clause (d) only if the bar is apparent from the plaint itself. Where determination of limitation such as when the right to sue accrued, whether there was any acknowledgment, or the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold. In the present case, the plea that the suit is barred by limitation is based on disputed facts rding accrual of cause of action and alleged ouster, which will require evidence. The trial Court, therefore, rightly refused to reject the plaint on this be in joint possession of the entire property unless there is a clear and unequivocal act of ouster by the other co- heir. th joint possession is TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.21 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-688-2025 (O&M) 3. On the ground of court fee: Where a plaintiff claims joint possession as a co under Article 17(iii) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act valorem court fee is not attracted. The trial Court rightly found that the objection on valuation and court fee 8. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity. The trial Co view that the plea of limitation here is a mixed question of law and fact; owner claiming joint possession need not seek separate possession; and valuation and court fee, as per the plaint stage. 9. In exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC, this Court cannot re Court in the absence of any jurisdictional error or 10. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed. 11. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. August 12, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable (O&M) On the ground of court fee: Where a plaintiff claims joint possession as a co under Article 17(iii) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act valorem court fee is not attracted. The trial Court rightly found that the objection on valuation and court fee has no merit at this stage. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity. The trial Court has correctly applied the law to the facts, keeping in the plea of limitation here is a mixed question of law and fact; owner claiming joint possession need not seek separate possession; and valuation and court fee, as per the plaint, are in accordance In exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC, this Court cannot re-appreciate the facts or substitute its discretion for that of the trial Court in the absence of any jurisdictional error or Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 2025 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -4- Where a plaintiff claims joint possession as a co-owner, fixed court fee under Article 17(iii) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act, 1870 is payable; ad valorem court fee is not attracted. The trial Court rightly found that the objection no merit at this stage. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or material urt has correctly applied the law to the facts, keeping in the plea of limitation here is a mixed question of law and fact; a co owner claiming joint possession need not seek separate possession; and , are in accordance with law at this In exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC, this appreciate the facts or substitute its discretion for that of the trial Court in the absence of any jurisdictional error or perversity. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No - owner, fixed court fee is payable; ad valorem court fee is not attracted. The trial Court rightly found that the objection The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or material urt has correctly applied the law to the facts, keeping in a co- the with law at this In exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC, this appreciate the facts or substitute its discretion for that of the trial TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.21 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document