2025:HHC:36380 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 673 of 2023 Decided on: 31.10.2025 Ram Kumar Verma and others … Petitioners Versus Sh. Sita Ram and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ___________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners : Mr. P.S. Goverdhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nitin Sood, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Parikshit Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Vipin Pandit, Advocate for respondent No. 1. : Mr. Akshay Katoch, Advocate for respondents No. 2 to 6. : Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 8. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by learned Trial Court dated 07.07.2023, in terms whereof, an application filed by the present petitioners under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that a civil suit has been filed by respondent No. 1 herein for damages, directing the defendants therein to make good payment of Rs.3.00 Lac to the plaintiff as compensation on account of causing 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:36380 loss and injury due to wrong and illegal acts committed by them. In terms of the plaint, the contention of the plaintiff is that he belongs to a respected family and his wife was elected as Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Bharti in the year 2010. On 14.06.2015, police came to village Bharti to summon the plaintiff and informed him that the defendants have filed a complaint against him and his wife. The contents of the complaint when read, demonstrated that defendants in connivance with others, to harm the good name of the plaintiff and his wife and also his family members and to ridicule them, had made wrong and false complaint to the police by leveling false allegations with a malafide intent to defame the plaintiff. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the said defamatory allegations levelled against the plaintiff as well as his wife for allegedly embezzling and misusing the MNREGA funds etc., the plaintiff has filed the civil suit. 4. In these proceedings, an application was filed under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the defendants for rejection of the plaint inter alia on the ground that the plaint was filed by making false averments and there was no truth or substance in the contents of the plaint. It was also mentioned in the application that the factum of the FIR having been registered against the parties on the basis of allegation was also concealed in the plaint and as 3 2025:HHC:36380 there was no substantial cause of action that had arisen in favour of the plaintiff, therefore, the plaint was liable to be rejected in terms of Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 5. In terms of order passed by the learned Trial Court, this application has been rejected. Learned Trial Court held that the defendants had taken a plea in the application that the plaint did not disclose cause of action whereas perusal of the plaint demonstrated that the defendants had tarnished their image in public by filing a false complaint with the police alongwith allegations of embezzlement of public funds. Learned Court also held that plaintiff’s claim damages for defamation and if defamation in the form of false complaint stood proved, it may result in decree in favour of the plaintiff and therefore, the plaint does disclose a cause of action. 6. Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Counsel for the respondents and having perused the impugned order, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order. It is settled law that in terms of Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a plaint can be rejected inter alia on the ground that if it either does not disclose any cause of action or is barred by any law. In the present case, contention of the defendants before the learned Trial Court was that the plaint did not disclose 4 2025:HHC:36380 any cause of action. Having perused the plaint, this Court concurs with the findings returned by the learned Trial Court that the same does disclose a cause of action. It is settled law that while deciding an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court is not to travel beyond the plaint and the documents appended therewith. This Court is not to see the merit of the plaint and it has to apply only the principle that if the allegations levelled therein stand proved, would there be a decree passed in favour of the plaintiff or not. Herein, as has been held by learned Trial Court, as the plaintiff alleges defamation, obviously, if he is able to prove the same, it will culminate into a decree. Therefore, it cannot be said that the plaint was not disclosing any cause of action. As such, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order, as has been observed hereinabove. However, it is clarified that because the Court has come to the conclusion that prima facie, the plaint does disclose a cause of action, this does not mean that this Court has returned a finding with regard to the merit thereof. Obviously whether or not the contents of the plaint are correct, has to be gone into by the learned Trial Court on the basis of written statement that may be filed by the defendant and evidence that will be led by the parties in support of their respective claims. Accordingly, without interfering with the impugned 5 2025:HHC:36380 order, this petition is disposed of with the observation that the learned Trial Court shall decide the civil suit without being influenced either by the order passed by it while dismissing the application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure or the order passed by this Court. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge October 31, 2025 (narender)