IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No.63 of 2019 Decided on 30th August, 2025 Rattan Chand through his legal representatives …Petitioners Versus Laxmi Devi …Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners: Mr. B.S. Attri, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Paras Ram, Advocate Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following relief:- “It is, therefore, prayed that the petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 21.11.2018 passed in CMA No.9003442/2018 in Civil Suit No.148-1 of 2013, titled Laxmi Devi versus Rattan Chand by the learned Civil Judge, (Sr. Division) (1) Shimla may kindly be reversed and set aside and the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) may kindly be allowed and the plaint may be rejected in the interest of justice and fair play.” 2 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court in terms whereof, the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code has been dismissed. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the impugned order as well as other documents appended with the petition. 4. In terms of the impugned order, learned Trial Court has rejected the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 inter alia on the ground that the suit of the plaintiff was for permanent prohibitory injunction which disclosed a proper cause of action and, therefore, the plaint did not fall within the category of Clause (e) and (f) of Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Learned Trial Court also held that the suit was neither undervalued nor insufficiently stamped and was also not barred under any law and, therefore, the plaint was not liable to be rejected. 5. This Court is of the considered view that the findings returned by the learned Trial Court call for no interference. A perusal of the plaint demonstrates that the suit filed by the plaintiff is for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction to 3 restrain the defendant from interfering in the suit land. In terms of the averments made in the plaint, it is inter alia mentioned that the cause of action accrued in favour of the plaintiff when in 1998, the plaintiff purchased the constructed unfurnished house and thereafter the plot in the year 2000 comprised in the suit land. It is further mentioned in the plaint that the cause of action accrued recently before the filing of the suit when the plaintiff was compelled to serve a legal notice on 29.07.2013 on receiving regular threats that he would be dispossessed of the suit land and that the nature of the suit land would be changed by the defendant. 6. According to the petitioner, the plaint was liable to be rejected as the same did not disclose any cause of action and further the suit was based upon an agreement allegedly executed on 02.12.2008 and, therefore, the suit was barred by limitation. This is what was urged on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. However, this Court is of the considered view that in light of the averments made in the plaint, it cannot be said that either there was no cause of action pleaded in the plaint or the 4 same was barred by limitation. This Court is not suggesting that whatever was mentioned in the plaint is the gospel truth, but fact of the matter remains that the stand of the plaintiff has to be demolished by the defendant through the written statement. 8. As far as Order 7 Rule 11 is concerned, for deciding an application filed therein, the Court is not to travel beyond the plaint and the documents appended with the plaint. Herein the averments made in the plaint on the face of it cannot be said to demonstrate that the suit was hit by Order 7 Rule 11. There is cause of action pleaded in the plaint and further in terms of the averments made in the plaint, the suit prima facie appears to be within limitation. In fact, whether or not the suit is within limitation being a mixed question of facts and law, it would be more appropriate that this issue is decided by allowing the parties to lead evidence and it would not be appropriate to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. This is exactly what has been done by the learned Trial Court also while dismissing the application and as the reasoning assigned by the learned Trial Court cannot be said to be perverse, therefore, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Trial 5 Court. 9. Accordingly, in light of the above observation, this petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 30, 2025 (Vinod)