CM-16102-CII-2025 in/and CR-4734-2025 (O&M) [1] 113 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM-16102-CII-2025 in/and CR-4734-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.08.2025 Rajan Kohli ...Petitioner Versus Gulbhushan Kumar Kohli and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr. Kunal Muthreja, Advocate and Mr. Pulkit Dagar, Advocate for the petitioner. **** VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL) CM-16102-CII-2025 1. This is an application filed under Section 151 CPC for restoration of the case and recalling of order dated 25.07.2025. 2. For the reasons stated in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit, the present application is allowed and order dated 25.07.2025 is recalled and the main case is restored to its original number and is taken on Board today itself for final disposal. Main case 1. This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 28.05.2025 passed in Civil Suit No.2822 of 2019, whereby an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, a perusal of the plaint would show that the plaintiffs have no PAWAN KUMAR 2025.08.22 18:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CM-16102-CII-2025 in/and CR-4734-2025 (O&M) [2] cause of action to file the suit. It is further submitted that the suit property was in fact transferred by Asha Rani in favour of Pranjal which fact has not been mentioned in the plaint and thus, the plaint deserves to be rejected. It is submitted that the impugned order, vide which the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed, be set aside and the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC be allowed. 3. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and has perused the paper book and is of the opinion that the impugned order is in accordance with law and deserves to be upheld and the present revision petition being meritless, deserves to be dismissed for the reasons stated hereinafter. 4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs have filed a suit for partition with consequential relief of permanent injunction on the pleading that the plaintiffs/respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the present petitioner/defendant are joint owners in possession to the extent of 1/3rd share each of the residential house in question. It is the case of respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs that Asha Rani was owner of the suit property and after the death of Asha Rani, the plaintiffs and defendant being sons of Asha Rani, are entitled to 1/3rd share each. In the plaint, it is specifically stated that the suit property has not been partitioned among the parties and is still joint and the present petitioner/defendant is adamant about raising construction and not partitioning the property and thus, the suit has been filed. A perusal of the suit would show that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have cause of action to file the suit. It is a matter of settled law that at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, it is the averments in the plaint which are to be taken into consideration and PAWAN KUMAR 2025.08.22 18:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CM-16102-CII-2025 in/and CR-4734-2025 (O&M) [3] not the defence of the defendant. Moreover, the question as to whether the plaintiffs/respondent Nos.1 and 2 would succeed in the case or not is also not to be taken into consideration at the stage of deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. In the said circumstances, the observations made by the trial Court while dismissing the application of the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to the effect that a perusal of the plaint would show that the plaintiffs have a cause of action to file the suit, cannot be faulted with. 5. Plea raised by the petitioner to the effect that there is a transfer deed dated 02.03.2015 in favour of the daughter of the petitioner with respect to the suit property and that the said plea has been taken in the written statement, is a plea of defence. At any rate, as has been mentioned in the impugned order, an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC along with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in order to make an amendment to challenge the said transfer deed dated 02.03.2015 as well as to implead the said Pranjal daughter of the petitioner has already been filed and the same is pending adjudication. It is not disputed before this Court that the plaintiffs are not party to the said transfer deed dated 02.03.2015. Thus, the said aspect raised as a defence would be considered during the course of trial after the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by the plaintiffs is decided and the same does not call for rejecting the suit at the threshold. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Shalini Shyam Shetty and another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil”, reported as (2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases 329, had observed that the High Courts cannot, at the PAWAN KUMAR 2025.08.22 18:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CM-16102-CII-2025 in/and CR-4734-2025 (O&M) [4] drop of a hat, in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere with the orders of tribunals or courts inferior to it. Nor can it, in exercise of this power, act as a court of appeal over the orders of court or tribunal subordinate to it. It was also observed in the said judgment that a statutory amendment with respect to Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code does not and cannot cut down the ambit of High Court’s power under Article 227 but at the same time, it must be remembered that such statutory amendment does not correspondingly expand the High Court’s jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227. The power of interference under this Article is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts subordinate to the High Court. It was also observed that the power under Article 227 may be unfettered but its exercise is subject to high degree of judicial discipline. 7. Keeping in view the above, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court while exercising its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the present revision petition being meritless, deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed. 8. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of in view of the abovesaid order. 22.08.2025 (VIKAS BAHL) Pawan JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No PAWAN KUMAR 2025.08.22 18:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document