CR-2147- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 109. DINESH KUMAR AND OTHERS AARTI CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: SUVIR SEHGAL 1. an application filed by the petitioners/defendants under CPC for rejection of the suit has been dismissed, petitioners have approached 2. respondent were married on 29 the wedlock is working as a helper in a that the respondent is a there is a marital discord that respondent has filed a complaint under the -2025 (O & M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR Date of decision: DINESH KUMAR AND OTHERS VS. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Ms. Aanchal Thakur, Advocate for the petitioners. **** SUVIR SEHGAL, J. Aggrieved of order dated 17 an application filed by the petitioners/defendants under CPC for rejection of the suit has been dismissed, petitioners have ed this Court by way of present revision petition Counsel for the petitioners respondent were married on 29.07.2021 and they do not have any child the wedlock. Petitioners No.2 to 11 are the working as a helper in a canteen and earning a meagre the respondent is an arrogant lady given to a marital discord between her and petitioner that respondent has filed a complaint under the -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-2147-2025 (O & M) Date of decision:05.04.2025 ...PETITIONERS ...RESPONDENT SUVIR SEHGAL , Advocate ggrieved of order dated 17.01.2025, Annexure P-10, whereby an application filed by the petitioners/defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the suit has been dismissed, petitioners have present revision petition. submits that petitioner No.1 and 2021 and they do not have any child from . Petitioners No.2 to 11 are the relatives of petitioner No.1, who and earning a meagre salary. She submits lady given to expensive tastes in life and etween her and petitioner No.1. Counsel states that respondent has filed a complaint under the Protection of Women whereby ule 11 CPC for rejection of the suit has been dismissed, petitioners have No.1 and from , who he submits in life and l states omen Sheetal 2025.04.21 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CR-2147- from Domestic petitioners petitioners is pending before this Annexure P proceedings beyond the date fixed in that in the meanwhile, respondent filed a suit injunction on complaint filed under equally efficacious remedy, the su maintainable and the petitioners filed an application rejection of the plaint Court. Referring to urged that th simultaneously the DV A 3. submission 4. specific performance levelled in a complaint filed under the of the Specific in the observations of the Supreme Court Sneha Ahuja 5. are governed by the -2025 (O & M) omestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short petitioners on frivolous grounds at Patiala petitioners is pending before this Court, wherein nnexure P-5, this Court has directed the proceedings beyond the date fixed in the that in the meanwhile, respondent filed a suit injunction on 02.05.2023, on the same allegations complaint filed under the DV Act. Counse equally efficacious remedy, the suit for maintainable and the petitioners filed an application rejection of the plaint, which has been erroneously declined by the eferring to Section 41 (h) of the that the remedy of injunction is barred as the respondent cannot simultaneously avail the remedies of a civil suit as well a DV Act. I have heard counsel for the petitioner submission besides examining the documents The sole question for consideration is as to whether a suit for performance, which is based on the same levelled in a complaint filed under the DV A pecific Relief Act, 1963. The answer to this question can be found n the observations of the Supreme Court Sneha Ahuja (2021) 1 SCC 414. Supreme Court observed that the proceedings under the are governed by the Code of Criminal -2- for short “the DVAct”) against the Patiala. A transfer petition filed by the , wherein by order dated 27.03.2023 ourt has directed the Trial Court to adjourn the the transfer petition. Counsel asserts that in the meanwhile, respondent filed a suit, Annexure P-7, for permanent on the same allegations as levelled in the sel urges that as respondent has an it for permanent injunction is not maintainable and the petitioners filed an application, Annexure P-8, which has been erroneously declined by the Trial of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 she remedy of injunction is barred as the respondent cannot the remedies of a civil suit as well as a complaint under ve heard counsel for the petitioners and considered besides examining the documents appended with the paper-book. he sole question for consideration is as to whether a suit for which is based on the same set of allegations as DV Act, is barred under Section 41 he answer to this question can be found n the observations of the Supreme Court in Satish Chander Ahuja Vs. Supreme Court observed that the proceedings under the DV A riminal Procedure, 1973. On a conjoint against the transfer petition filed by the 2023, Trial Court to adjourn the l asserts for permanent in the l urges that as respondent has an permanent injunction is not for Trial she has remedy of injunction is barred as the respondent cannot s a complaint under and considered her book. he sole question for consideration is as to whether a suit for allegations as ection 41(h) he answer to this question can be found Satish Chander Ahuja Vs. Act n a conjoint Sheetal 2025.04.21 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CR-2147- reading of the DV Act criminal court, as mentioned in proceeding be considered by t under the the right of civil proceedings, which relate to the same subject to adjudicat the parties court is therefore maintain Rule 11(d) declined impugned order 6. order as to costs 05.04.2025 sheetal -2025 (O & M) of its various provisions, it can safely be said that DV Act and the proceedings before the civil criminal court, as mentioned in Section 26 of the ings. However, the findings and orders passed by one for be considered by the other forum. Therefore, the pendency of proceedings under the DV Act or any interim or final order passed t the right of residence is not an embargo on initiation of or continuing of proceedings, which relate to the same subject to adjudicate the issues raised before it o the parties. A suit for mandatory permanent injunction filed before th herefore maintainable and is not liable to be rejected under (d) CPC. The application moved by the petitioners by the Trial Court. There is no irregularity or illegality in the impugned order. Petition being bereft of merit, is order as to costs. .2025 Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No -3- , it can safely be said that proceedings under and the proceedings before the civil court, family court or a ection 26 of the DV Act are independent s. However, the findings and orders passed by one forum have to . Therefore, the pendency of proceedings or any interim or final order passed thereunder regarding is not an embargo on initiation of or continuing of any proceedings, which relate to the same subject matter. A civil court has on the basis of the evidence led by suit for mandatory permanent injunction filed before the civil not liable to be rejected under Order 7 moved by the petitioners has been rightly here is no irregularity or illegality in the of merit, is dismissed, though with (SUVIR SEHGAL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No proceedings under ourt, family court or a are independent have to . Therefore, the pendency of proceedings under regarding any . A civil court has n the basis of the evidence led by e civil rder 7 has been rightly here is no irregularity or illegality in the with no Sheetal 2025.04.21 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh