Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 38868 (HP)

RAJEEV NAG v. Himachal Pradesh Wakf Board

CR/38/2025 · 2025-12-03

Bipin Chander Negi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:HHC:41612 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Revision No. 38 of 2025 Decided on: 03.12.2025 ____________________________________________________ Rajeev Nag ……….. Appellant Versus Himachal Pradesh Wakf Board, Shimla ……….respondent ____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner : Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Abhinav Thakur, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi, Judge ( oral) The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 04.12.2024, passed by the learned Chairman, Himachal Pradesh Waqf Tribunal, Dharamshala in CMA No. 1 of 2024, whereby an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC by the present petitioner/defendant before the trial Court has been rejected. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned order and documents appended along with the present petition. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. At the very outset, it would be appropriate to mention that while considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, all that has to be considered is the plaint and the documents filed along with the same by the plaintiff before the trial Court. 4. The sole contention urged in the case at hand is that the plaint in the case at hand discloses no cause of action. I have perused the plaint. The suit land is shown to be in the ownership and possession of the respondent/plaintiff. Revenue record qua the same has been appended with the plaint. The allegation is qua encroachment by way of construction on the suit land. Hence, in view of the aforesaid, it is evident that plaint discloses enforceable cause of action for maintaining the suit. 5. No other contention raised. 6. In view of the aforesaid, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 04.12.2024. Petition stands disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge December 3rd, 2025 Susheel