1 ( 2025:HHC:36029 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.457 of 2023 Date of Decision : 29.10.2025 Bhagat Ram and another …… Petitioners Versus Jagdish chand and others ……Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Somesh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rupinder Singh, Advocate. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 09.06.2023, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, in CMA No.367 of 2023 in Civil Suit No.26/1 of 2023, titled Jagdish Chand vs. Punjab National Bank and others, whereby an application preferred under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code by the present petitioners/ defendants before the trial Court, has been dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings in the case at hand. 3. The plaint is appended along-with the present petition as Annexure P-4. From a perusal of the plaint, it is evident that the dispute, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:36029 ) in the case at hand, is with respect to the property of one Master Rahul Kashyap, who had died on 23.11.2020. Respondent No.1/plaintiff, in the case at hand, is the maternal grand-father of deceased Master Rahul Kashyap. The mother and father of deceased Master Rahul Kashyap had predeceased him. The mother of Master Rahul Kashyap had died in the year, 2008 and his father had died on 05.05.2017. It is in the aforesaid backdrop, upon the death of Master Rahul Kashyap who had died on 23.11.2022 that the present suit was filed by the respondent, i.e., the maternal grand-father of Master Rahul Kashyap, laying a claim to the Fixed Deposits (FDRs) detailed in the plaint. 4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners/defendants has drawn attention of this Court to Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, specifically Clause (a) thereof. The same is reproduced as under:- “11. Rejection of plaint.- The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:- (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;” 5. In the aforesaid backdrop, he has drawn attention of this Court to Sections 8 and 9 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which are being reproduced here-in-below:- “8. General rules of succession in the case of males.―The property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of this Chapter:― (a) firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class I of the Schedule; (b) secondly, if there is no heir of class I, then upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class II of the Schedule; 3 ( 2025:HHC:36029 ) (c) thirdly, if there is no heir of any of the two classes, then upon the agnates of the deceased; and (d) lastly, if there is no agnate, then upon the cognates of the deceased. 9. Order of succession among heirs in the Schedule.―Among the heirs specified in the Schedule, those in class I shall take simultaneously and to the exclusion of all other heirs; those in the first entry in class II shall be preferred to those in the second entry; those in the second entry shall be preferred to those in the third entry; and so on in succession.” 6. It is the contention of learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners/defendants that insofar as respondents/plaintiffs and the present petitioners, i.e., defendants No.3 and 4 are concerned, the aforesaid parties to the list are both Class-II heirs. Being Class-II heirs, in terms of Section 9 of the Hindu Succession Act, the present petitioners/defendants No.3 and 4 have to be preferred over and above the respondents/plaintiffs as according to learned Senior Advocate in the Schedule appended along-with Hindu Succession Act pertaining to Class- II heirs. The respondents/defendants have been mentioned at entry No.5 of Class-II heirs and respondent No.1/plaintiff has been mentioned at entry No.8 of the same. Class-II heirs mentioned higher in the hierarchy at entry No.5 in terms of Section 9 shall be preferred over those Class-II heirs detailed lower in the hierarchy. 7. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances of the case at hand, it is contended that on the death of Master Rahul Kashyap, as has been detailed in the plaint on 23.11.2020, no cause of action has accrued in favour of respondent No.1/plaintiff to file the suit. 4 ( 2025:HHC:36029 ) 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/plaintiffs submits that the plaint does disclose a cause of action. 9. The cause of action is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff the right to relief against the defendant. In this respect reference can be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supeme Court in Swamy Atmananda and others vs. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam and others, 2005 (10) SCC 51, wherein, it has been held as under:- “24. A cause of action, thus, means every fact, which, if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the Court. In other words, it is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. It must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such an act no cause of action can possibly accrue. It is not limited to the actual infringement of the right sued on but includes all the material facts on which it is founded.” 10. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, it is clearly evident that on the death of Master Rahul Kashyap, no right to relief accrued in favour of the maternal grand-father in terms of Section 9 of the Hindu Succession Act, as the paternal grand-parents, i.e., the present petitioners/defendants No.3 and 4 were alive and hence, the bank had correctly refused to release the Fixed Deposits (FDRs) in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs, in the case at hand. 11. In view of the aforesaid, present petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 09.06.2023, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, 5 ( 2025:HHC:36029 ) Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, in CMA No.367 of 2023 in Civil Suit No.26/1 of 2023, titled Jagdish Chand vs. Punjab National Bank and others, is quashed and set aside. The plaint filed in the case at hand is rejected in view of the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(a) of the Civil Procedure Code. 12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) October 29, 2025 (KS) Judge