IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 113 CR-2464-2025 Date of Decision.:25.04.2025 Raj Singh …..Pe,,oner Vs. Sunil @ Sonu and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate for the peoner. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Defendant No.1 of civil suit bearing No.CS-156-2023 tled as “Sunil Versus Raj Singh and Others”, pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Meham, is before this Court in the present revision peon, assailing the order dated 18.01.2025 (Annexure P-4), whereby trial Court has dismissed his applicaon under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejecng the plaint. 2. Perusal of the paper-book would reveal that plainff Sunil @ Sonu (respondent No.1 herein) sought decree of declaraon to declare relinquishment deed dated 05.02.2002 to be the result of fraud. He also challenged the subsequent entries in the revenue record to be null, illegal and void. 3. Defendants sought rejecon of the plaint on the ground on non-payment of the Court fee. It was also contended that one of the defendants had already expired when the suit was filed. Besides, proper court fee had not been affixed. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.04.28 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2464-2025 -2- 4. As the trial Court dismissed the applicaon, so defendant has approached this Court by contending that trial Court wrongly held that queson of limitaon was mixed queson of law and fact. 5. It will be apt to reproduce the observaons made by the trial Court, while dismissing the applicaon. “5. Heard and perused the case record, it transpires that plainff had filed the present case for declaratory decree to declare that the relinquishment deed dated 05.02-2002 and mutaon no. 7139 dated 31.07.2002 were obtained by playing a fraud and the same were void, along with the consequenal relief of mandatory injuncon direcng defendant no. 5 to correct the revenue entries. He had specifically pleaded in para no. 10 & 16 of plaint that he had came to know about the impugned relinquishment deed and mutaon on 09.10.2023. It is a maBer of trial to be proved by evidences that he had prior noce of these documents. Hence, in present case the queson of limitaon and cause of acon are mixed queson of law and facts and cannot be decided while deciding the present applicaon under Order VII r 11 of CPC. Prima-facie it appears that he has filed the present case as soon as he had come to know about the alleged documents. Therefore, nothing appears from the plaint, which ensues that the plaint ought to be rejected on ground of bar of limitaon under Order VII r 11(d) of CPC. 6. As far as the second contenon pertaining to the proof/accrual of cause of acon to the plainff is concerned, this court found that the accrual of cause of acon and the proof of cause of acon are to be seen at the me of dismissal of suit. The plaint may be rejected on non- disclosure of cause of acon and the power of the court in this regard is limited and the court has to see the pleadings as a whole to see the presence of cause of acon. Even the pares may be examined under Order X of CPC to find out the cause of acon. In present case, from the perusal of plaint, it prima-facie appears that all the pares to the case are family members and the plainff had contended the impugned instrument NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.04.28 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2464-2025 -3- on the basis of being legal heir. Hence, a cause of acon is sufficiently disclosed. 7. As far as the objecon of mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary pares, filing of suit against a dead person etc. is concerned, this court found that a suit is liable to be dismissed on these grounds and not rejected by virtue of Order VII r 11 of CPC. Moreover, the suit is not barred by mis-joinder or simply non-joinder of pares, if not necessary party. It has to be proved by way of evidence, that any necessary party was leG to be joined or not or any person impleaded as party has already expired, which cannot be allowed by virtue of Order VII r 11 of CPC. On mere perusal of plaint, the aforesaid objecons were not prima-facie appeared to be true. 8. Lastly, the objecon of the defendant no. 1 qua the none payment of sufficient court fees and undervaluaon of suit is also liable to be rejected. As per secon 7(iv)(c) of Court Fees Act, the court fees is payable according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in plaint. The present case the plainff had valued the suit for rupees five hundred and a court fees of rupees seventy five according to it has been paid. It is again a maBer of evidence as to if the suit has been undervalued and from the mere perusal of the plaint, it does not transpires to be true.” 5. It is undisputed posion of law that at the me of considering the applicaon under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, it is only the averments made in the plaint, which are required to be looked into. The defence to be put forth by the defendants cannot be considered at that stage. 6. As has been observed by the trial Court that plainffs specifically pleaded that he had come to know about the impugned relinquishment deed and the subsequent mutaon only on 09.10.2023. In these circumstances, it becomes the queson of law and fact as to whether the suit was barred by limitaon or not. Similarly, whether relinquishment deed is based upon fraud as is alleged by the plainff, is also required to be decided on the basis of evidence. It is also been rightly observed that NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.04.28 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2464-2025 -4- simply because one of the defendants had already expired, cannot be a ground to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Sll further, plainff being not the executant of the impugned relinquishment deed and having not prayed for possession of the property in dispute, so the ad valorem Court fee was not required to be paid, as is contended by learned counsel for the peoner. 7. In view of the above discussion, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. No merits. Dismissed. ( DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE April 25, 2025 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.04.28 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document