( 2025:HHC:5505 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 748 of 2024 Date of decision : 10.3.2025. Sohan Lal & others ...Petitioners. Versus Santosh Goyal ...Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. B.S. Chauhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent : Nemo. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) Despite service, none has appeared on behalf of the respondent. 2. Heard. 3. Petitioners by way of instant petition, have assailed order dated 2.9.2024, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rampur Bushehr in Case No. 24 of 2023, titled as, Santosh Goyal vs. Sohan Lal & others, whereby the application of the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint has been dismissed. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- 4. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the petition are that the petitioners herein filed an eviction petition against one Sh. Krishan Pal under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act for eviction from the premises consisting of one shop on ground floor and two rooms with kitchen at first floor, situated over Khasra Nos. 129 and 130 i.e., House No. 45, Ward No.4, Kasba Rampur Bushehr, District Shimla. An eviction order came to be passed against Sh. Krishan Pal on 14.12.2022. 5. The respondent herein is the son of Sh. Krishan Pal. The respondent has filed the suit before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rampur Bushehr, seeking his individual right over the property from which his father Krishan Pal has been ordered to be evicted. The respondent has also challenged the title of petitioners over the property involved in the suit. 6. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners herein as defendants filed an application for rejection of plant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC on the grounds that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action, it was undervalued and also the suit was barred by law. -3- 7. The learned Trial Court vide impugned order has rejected the application of the petitioners by holding that the plant discloses cause of action and the objections as to the valuation and estoppel, raised by the defendants, are also not made out. 8. Admittedly, the respondent is seeking to assert his independent right over an immoveable property from which his father has already been ordered to be evicted after holding him tenant in respect thereof. It being so, the questions as being raised by the respondent/plaintiff cannot be raised by an independent suit in terms of Rule 101 of Order 21 of the CPC, which reads as under:- “101. Question to be determined.- All questions (including questions relating to right, title or interest in the property) arising between the parties to a proceeding on an application under rule 97 or rule 99 or their representatives, and relevant to the adjudication of the application, shall be determined by the Court dealing with the application and not by a separate suit and for this purpose, the Court shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, be deemed to have jurisdiction to decide such questions.” -4- 9. Thus, the learned trial Court has erred by ignoring the bar of law that faced the filing of the suit by the respondent/plaintiff. In this view of the matter obviously, no cause of action also could be said to have been made out in favour of the plaintiff for filing the suit. 10. In result, the petition is allowed. The application of the petitioners herein/defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 is ordered to be allowed and the plaint is ordered to be rejected. It is, however, clarified that this order shall not prejudice the right of respondent herein, if any, available to him under the provisions of Order 21 Rule 101 or any other provisions of law. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 10th March, 2025 (kck)