IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 124 Bahadurgarh Siksha Sabha & Another Maharaja Aggarsain Trust & CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, J. defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 11.04.2025 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar whereby application 28.02.2024 (Annexure P10) filed by respondent/plaintiff 17 CPC, stands allowed. 2. application filed by the have been allowed a 08.02.2024 (Annexure P9) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Bahadurgarh Siksha Sabha & Another Vs. Maharaja Aggarsain Trust & Others HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Nirbhay Garg, Advocate Mr. Amrinder K. Garg, Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Garg, Advocate for the petitioners. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present Revision Petition has been filed by the defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 11.04.2025 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar whereby application 28.02.2024 (Annexure P10) filed by respondent/plaintiff stands allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner application filed by the respondents under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC could not have been allowed as it was the clear direction of this Court in order dated 08.02.2024 (Annexure P9) passed in Civil Revision No.2116 of 2023 “8. So, in the light of above discussions, the impugned order dated 05.04.2023 (Annexure P-8) is set aside. The learned trial Court is directed to pass speaking order whether the suit is IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-3092-2025(O&M) Date of decision: 22.05.2025 ...Petitioner(s) ...Respondent(s) HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA , Advocate , Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Garg, Advocate Revision Petition has been filed by the defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 11.04.2025 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar whereby application dated 28.02.2024 (Annexure P10) filed by respondent/plaintiff under Order 6 Rule Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC could not s it was the clear direction of this Court in order dated Civil Revision No.2116 of 2023 that: - “8. So, in the light of above discussions, the impugned order 8) is set aside. The learned trial Court is directed to pass speaking order whether the suit is 4 Revision Petition has been filed by the defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 11.04.2025 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge dated under Order 6 Rule submits that the respondents under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC could not s it was the clear direction of this Court in order dated “8. So, in the light of above discussions, the impugned order 8) is set aside. The learned trial Court is directed to pass speaking order whether the suit is SUNENA 2025.05.26 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3. decision on the application filed by the respondent under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of plaint; it was incumbent upon the learned trial Court to pass orders on the application filed by the petitioner 11 CPC. 4. 5. perused the case file in great detail. 6. behalf of the petitioners. 7. had filed a Civil Suit dated 20.06.2018 (Annexure P5) permanent injunction under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC dated 11.03.2019 (Annexure P6) for rejection of plaint on two grounds cause of action. Vide order dated 05.04.2023 (Annexure P8), the application of the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was dismissed by the learned trial Court. Revision No.2116 of 2023 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 08.02.2024 maintainable or not and then to dispose of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC afresh only on this ground.” Ld. Counsel contends decision on the application filed by the respondent under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of plaint; it was incumbent upon the learned trial Court s orders on the application filed by the petitioner No other argument is made on behalf of the petitioner I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner perused the case file in great detail. I find no merit whatsoever in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff Civil Suit dated 20.06.2018 (Annexure P5) permanent injunction. In the said suit, petitioner had moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC dated 11.03.2019 (Annexure P6) for rejection of plaint on two grounds: a) that the suit is time barred; and b) that there is no cause of action. Vide order dated 05.04.2023 (Annexure P8), the application of the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was dismissed by the learned trial Court. Against the same, the Revision No.2116 of 2023 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 08.02.2024 (Annexure P9) with the above maintainable or not and then to dispose of the application r 7 Rule 11 CPC afresh only on this ground.” . Counsel contends that therefore, prior to any decision on the application filed by the respondent under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of plaint; it was incumbent upon the learned trial Court s orders on the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule No other argument is made on behalf of the petitioners. rned counsel for the petitioners and I find no merit whatsoever in the submissions made on Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff Civil Suit dated 20.06.2018 (Annexure P5) for declaration and t, petitioner had moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC dated 11.03.2019 (Annexure P6) for rejection of a) that the suit is time barred; and b) that there is no cause of action. Vide order dated 05.04.2023 (Annexure P8), the said application of the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was dismissed by Against the same, the petitioner had preferred Civil Revision No.2116 of 2023 which was disposed of by this Court vide order P9) with the above-noted direction. It is 4 maintainable or not and then to dispose of the application that therefore, prior to any decision on the application filed by the respondent under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of plaint; it was incumbent upon the learned trial Court under Order 7 Rule and I find no merit whatsoever in the submissions made on Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff for declaration and t, petitioner had moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC dated 11.03.2019 (Annexure P6) for rejection of a) that the suit is time barred; and b) that there is no said application of the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was dismissed by petitioner had preferred Civil Revision No.2116 of 2023 which was disposed of by this Court vide order noted direction. It is SUNENA 2025.05.26 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document thereafter that the respondent had filed 28.02.2024 (Annexure P10) plaint. 8. Order 7 Rule 11 CPC be decided before deciding the application is based on a clear 8.2.2024. Needless to say, the said insistence of the pet the validity of the objection raised by the petitioner in his application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC would be tested upon the assertions made in the plaint – which assertions respondent vide the instant application. under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has to be decided first can be taken in any application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 9. the abject refusal of the petitioner to file reply to the respondent application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, learned trial Court is that petitioner has been granted one mo opportunity to file reply to the file reply of the application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with thereafter that the respondent had filed 28.02.2024 (Annexure P10) under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of The insistence of the petitioner thathis application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC be decided before deciding the is based on a clear misreading of the order Needless to say, the said insistence of the pet the validity of the objection raised by the petitioner in his application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC would be tested upon the assertions made in the plaint which assertions, at present, are sought to be amended by the respondent vide the instant application. It is but logical that the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has to be decided first can be taken in any application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Moreover, the impugned order reveals that refusal of the petitioner to file reply to the respondent application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, all that has been directed by the learned trial Court is that petitioner has been granted one mo opportunity to file reply to the said application “Therefore, learned counsel for the defendants are directed to file reply of the application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC on the next date of hearing so that same can be decided without any unnecessary delay and after deciding the above application, the Court would proceed further to adjudicate upon the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC as thereafter that the respondent had filed present application dated under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of The insistence of the petitioner thathis application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC be decided before deciding the respondent's reading of the order of this Court dated Needless to say, the said insistence of the petitioner is absurd as the validity of the objection raised by the petitioner in his application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC would be tested upon the assertions made in the plaint are sought to be amended by the It is but logical that the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has to be decided first, and before any decision can be taken in any application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. eover, the impugned order reveals that in view of refusal of the petitioner to file reply to the respondent’s all that has been directed by the learned trial Court is that petitioner has been granted one more application, as follows: - Therefore, learned counsel for the defendants are directed to file reply of the application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC on the next date of hearing so that same can be decided without any unnecessary delay and after deciding pplication, the Court would proceed further to adjudicate upon the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC as 4 application dated under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of The insistence of the petitioner thathis application under respondent's dated as the validity of the objection raised by the petitioner in his application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC would be tested upon the assertions made in the plaint are sought to be amended by the It is but logical that the application and before any decision in view of ’s all that has been directed by the re Therefore, learned counsel for the defendants are directed to file reply of the application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC on the next date of hearing so that same can be decided without any unnecessary delay and after deciding pplication, the Court would proceed further to adjudicate upon the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC as SUNENA 2025.05.26 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 10. interfere in the impugned order. dismissed. 11. 22.05.2025 Sunena Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: per law. Now, to come up on 12.05.2025 for the above purpose.” In view of the above, no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned order. Present petition accordingly stands Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No per law. Now, to come up on 12.05.2025 for the above In view of the above, no ground is made out to Present petition accordingly stands Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 4 per law. Now, to come up on 12.05.2025 for the above SUNENA 2025.05.26 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document