2025:HHC:34102 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 431 of 2025 Decided on : 08.10.2025 Sh. Ram Krishan Khagta and another …Petitioners Versus Sh. Rajiv Khagta and others. …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Mohinder Verma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rohit, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.2 to 5. Respondent No.6 proceeded against exparte. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioners have assailed order dated 06.06.2025, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P, in Civil Suit No. 182-1 of 2022/2020, in terms whereof, application filed by the 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:34102 petitioners herein under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’), was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has taken the Court through the plaint as well as the impugned order and submitted that the order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the learned Trial Court has erred in not appreciating that as the plaint did not disclose any cause of action and further as it was barred by limitation, the same was liable to be rejected under the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has defended the order passed by the learned Trial Court and submitted that as the plaint disclosed the cause of action and the factum of the same being within limitation, there is no perversity in the order. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned order as well as other documents on record. 5. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to mention that while dealing with an application under Order VII, Rule 11 3 2025:HHC:34102 of the CPC, the Court is only required to peruse the plaint and any documents appended therewith. The defence of the parties is not to be taken into consideration at said stage. 6. Coming to the facts of this case, in the plaint it is stated that the plaintiff acquired ownership/proprietary right over the suit land and is recorded as co-owner of the same along-with defendants No. 5, 6 and 7 by way of a settlement deed executed by the father of the plaintiff vide Registration No. 159 of 2015, dated 08.06.2015. It is further stated in the plaint that in the month of November, 2019, defendants No. 3 and 4 tried to dig the suit land without the consent and permission of the plaintiff and when they were asked by the plaintiff, they informed him that the suit land was transferred in the favour of the State by the predecessor-in-interest of defendants No. 5 and 6 in the year 2004 by way of a gift deed. It is further averred in the plaint that when enquired about this fact from their father, he acknowledged the execution of the gift deed by his elder brother but stated that the gift deed was executed by misleading and misrepresenting the fact that he was gifting the land which was given to him by way of family partition and was 4 2025:HHC:34102 in his exclusive possession and thus his brother had cheated him. 7. To cut the controversy short, in Paragraph No. 5 of the plaint it stands averred that the cause of action accrued in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants firstly on 10.03.2004, when the alleged gift deed was executed and thereafter, on 26.12.2019, when the defendants at the instance of defendants No.5 and 6 tried to construct a road without adopting the due process. It is further averred that cause of action again accrued on 04.09.2020 when the demarcation of the land was filed, which demarcation as per the plaintiff, was not as per the guidelines laid down by the Financial Commissioner. 8. This Court is of the considered view that on perusal of the plaint, it cannot be said that the same does not disclose any cause of action or the same is barred by limitation. This Court is not suggesting that whatever is contained in the plaint has merit or not. All that this Court is observing is that on bare perusal of the plaint, it cannot be said that the same either does not disclose any cause of action or it is barred by limitation. As 5 2025:HHC:34102 per the petitioners, the cause of action accrued in December, 2019, when the land probably was dug by the Department for the construction of a road and as the suit itself was filed in the month of October, 2020, it cannot be said that the same was barred by limitation. The cause of action, as already mentioned hereinabove, in terms as it is pleaded, stands disclosed and, therefore, it is not as if there is no cause pleaded in the plaint. 9. In this backdrop, if one peruses the order passed by the learned Trial Court, one finds that the learned Trial Court has rejected the application by holding that in the present case, the plaint did disclose a cause of action and it cannot be said that without a trial, the plaintiff's right to sue was extinguished in the year 2004. Learned Trial Court has also held that the contention of the defence may ultimately prevail but then at this stage, it cannot be the basis for the rejection of the plaint. Learned Trial Court has also held that rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC would amount to foreclosing the plaintiff's right to seek adjudication on serious and contested issues and further in the peculiar facts of the case, even the issue of limitation was a mixed question of law. 6 2025:HHC:34102 10. This Court concurs with the findings returned by the learned Trial Court and holds that herein it was not a case wherein the plaint could have been rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC and the learned Trial Court has committed no illegality or perversity while dismissing the application filed under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC by the present petitioners. Otherwise also, the grounds on which the petitioners have relied upon for rejection of the plaint, can be pleaded by them in their written statement and the learned Trial Court can adjudicate thereupon, in light of the evidence which may be led by the parties concerned. 11. Therefore, as this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order, the same is upheld and the petition is dismissed. It is clarified that the observations, which have been made by this Court in this order are only for the purpose of the adjudication of this petition and the learned Trial Court shall not be influenced therefrom in the course of the adjudication of the civil suit. 12. The petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of 7 2025:HHC:34102 accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge October 08, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)