( 2025:HHC:18940 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 200 of 2024. Decided on : 19 th June, 2025. Surender Kumar & Anr. ...Petitioners. Versus Chander Mani Sharma ....Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. H.S. Rangra, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Loveneesh Kanwar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Tek Chand, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral). Heard. 2. The instant petition has been filed against the order dated 14.11.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge, Court No.2, Sundernagar in CMA No. 426 of 2024 in Civil Suit No. 156 of 2015, whereby the application of the petitioners herein under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( for short “the Code”) has been dismissed. 3. Petitioners are the defendants in the above noted civil suit and the respondent is the plaintiff. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:18940 ) 4. The suit has been filed for relief of possession of a house consisting of two rooms and a veranda standing constructed over the land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 178 min/206, Khasra No. 556 situated in Muhal Dohdu, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. The case of the plaintiff is that he is owner of the suit property. The defendants are his son and daughter-in-law respectively. As per the plaintiff, the defendants were occupying the house on the suit land with his permission. However, since the defendants started misbehaving with him, he did not want them to continue in possession and for such reason the suit has been filed. 5. The defendants filed written statement. Issue were framed. Plaintiff’s evidence was recorded partly. At that stage, the defendants filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code for rejection of the plaint. 6. It was contended in the application that the defendants and plaintiff had entered into a compromise even before the filing of the suit and in terms thereof, the plaintiff had consented to allow the electricity and water connection to be installed in the house in question. On such premise, it was alleged that the suit of the plaintiff was without cause of action. 3 ( 2025:HHC:18940 ) 7. Plaintiff contested the application and finally the learned trial Court has dismissed the same vide impugned order dated 14.11.2024. 8. The impugned order reveals that the learned trial Court has declined the prayer for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaint discloses a cause of action. The legal proposition that for deciding the application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code, only the averments made in the plaint and documents filed therewith were to be considered, has also been taken note of. 9. Having considered the record, I find no illegality and perversity in the impugned order. It is more than settled that the defence howsoever strong raised by the defendants has not to be considered at the time of adjudicating upon an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code. Only the contents of the plaint and the documents annexed therewith are relevant. The learned trial Court has rightly concluded that the plaint on the face of it discloses enforceable cause of action. 10. Additionally, it can be seen that the application filed by the defendants was not bonafide. The fact that the 4 ( 2025:HHC:18940 ) application was filed after about 9 years of the filing of the suit reveals the real intent of the defendants. 9. In result, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 19th June, 2025. (jai)