CR-3186-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Santosh @ Santosh Grover Kishore Kumar Khurania CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN Present: HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J. HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J. HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J. HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J. 1. under Article 227 of the Constitution, impugning the order dated 05.04.2025 Division), Kaithal under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civi short, ‘the CPC’). Brief facts: Brief facts: Brief facts: Brief facts: 2. 2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH Santosh @ Santosh Grover Versus Kishore Kumar Khurania and another CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN Mr. Sunil Chadha, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jatinder Singh Kaliraman, Advocate and Mr. Tara Dutt, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Aman Pal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Neha Rani, Advocate and Mr. Balraj Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1. HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J. HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J. HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J. HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J. The defendant No.2-petitioner has filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, impugning the order dated 05.04.2025 (Annexure P-8), passed by the Division), Kaithal, dismissing the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civi short, ‘the CPC’). Brief facts: Brief facts: Brief facts: Brief facts: Description of the property: MCK No.951/11, Property ID No.110C64U2 MCK No.952/11, Property ID No.110C57U21; IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH CR CR CR CR----3186 3186 3186 3186----20 20 20 2025 25 25 25 (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) Reserved on : Reserved on : Reserved on : Reserved on : 15.07.2026 15.07.2026 15.07.2026 15.07.2026 Pronounced on : Pronounced on : Pronounced on : Pronounced on : 30.07.2026 30.07.2026 30.07.2026 30.07.2026 Uploaded on : Uploaded on : Uploaded on : Uploaded on : 33330000....00007777....2222000022226666 ...Petitioner ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN Mr. Sunil Chadha, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jatinder Singh Kaliraman, Advocate and Mr. Aman Pal, Senior Advocate with . Neha Rani, Advocate and Mr. Balraj Sharma, Advocate petitioner has filed this Civil Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution, impugning the order dated , passed by the Civil Judge (Junior , dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for MCK No.951/11, Property ID No.110C64U21; , Property ID No.110C57U21; ATUL SETHI 2026.07.30 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CR-3186-2025 2.1 owner of the property took a loan facility from Hero Fin but ultimately, there was Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 initiated and the petitioner purchased the said property in a public auction, in pursuance of the said proceedings 2.2 petitioner seeking declaration that the Auction and Sale Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner regarding the suit property null & void. The relief of permanent injun 2.3 P-2) under Order VI dated 08.12.2022 (Annexure P trial Court; civil suit is barred in view of the provisions of Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act 2.4 defendant No.2 by way of filing an appeal (Annexure P stated to be 2.5 Kishore Kumar Khurania, respondent No.1, seeking a decree for separate possession by way of partition of the suit property. The relief 2025 -2- Situated at Patti Kaisth Seth, Ambala Road, Kaithal, measuring 866.33 square yards. Respondent No.2-Anand Prakash Khurania, owner of the property took a loan facility from Hero Fin but ultimately, there was a default and proceedings under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the SARFAESI Act’) initiated and the petitioner purchased the said property in a public in pursuance of the said proceedings The plaintiff-respondent No.2 filed a civil suit against the petitioner seeking declaration that the Auction and Sale Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner regarding the suit property null & void. The relief of permanent injun The petitioner-defendant filed an application (Annexure 2) under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in the aforesaid suit. Vide order dated 08.12.2022 (Annexure P-3), the application was accepted by the trial Court; and the plaint was rejected on the ground that filing of a civil suit is barred in view of the provisions of Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act. Thereafter, the said order has been challenged by defendant No.2 by way of filing an appeal (Annexure P stated to be pending. Meanwhile, another suit (Annexure P Kishore Kumar Khurania, respondent No.1, seeking a decree for separate possession by way of partition of the suit property. The relief Situated at Patti Kaisth Seth, Ambala Road, Kaithal, .33 square yards. Prakash Khurania, being the owner of the property took a loan facility from Hero Fin Corp, Delhi, default and proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement (for short, ‘the SARFAESI Act’) were initiated and the petitioner purchased the said property in a public in pursuance of the said proceedings. respondent No.2 filed a civil suit against the petitioner seeking declaration that the Auction and Sale Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner regarding the suit property are illegal, null & void. The relief of permanent injunction was also sought. defendant filed an application (Annexure Rule 11 CPC in the aforesaid suit. Vide order 3), the application was accepted by the rejected on the ground that filing of a civil suit is barred in view of the provisions of Section 34 of the Thereafter, the said order has been challenged by defendant No.2 by way of filing an appeal (Annexure P-4), which is (Annexure P-5) was filed by Kishore Kumar Khurania, respondent No.1, seeking a decree for separate possession by way of partition of the suit property. The relief ATUL SETHI 2026.07.30 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CR-3186-2025 for permanent injunction was also sought. The petiti No.2 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC (Annexure P-6), alleging that the suit has bee with defendant No.1 ulterior motive bona fide purchaser of the suit property for valuable consideration as per the impleaded as a party to the suit, as such, the suit is liable to be dismissed. The said application has been dismissed by the trial Court by passing the impugned order dated 05.04.2025. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. petitioner is a consideration; the suit filed by the plaintiff of the provisions of Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act; the suit filed by the respondent earlier filed a suit challenging the Sale Certificate in favour of the petitioner, which was sharers reflected in the suit, as such, the plaint is liable to be rejected. Cites K. Umar Khan (SC), 2021 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 287; K. Umar Khan (SC), 2021 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 287; K. Umar Khan (SC), 2021 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 287; K. Umar Khan (SC), 2021 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 287; Traders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Traders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Traders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Traders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. (Civil) 308. (Civil) 308. (Civil) 308. (Civil) 308. 4. that the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been rightly dismissed. Reliance has been pla 2025 -3- for permanent injunction was also sought. The petiti filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC (Annexure 6), alleging that the suit has been filed by the plaintiff in collusion with defendant No.1-Anand Parkash Khurania, his real brother, with an ulterior motive to harass the petitioner; petitioner purchaser of the suit property for valuable consideration s per the jamabandi, there are many co impleaded as a party to the suit, as such, the suit is liable to be dismissed. The said application has been dismissed by the trial Court by passing the impugned order dated 05.04.2025. Aggrieved by the rder, the petitioner is before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of the suit property consideration; the suit filed by the plaintiff visions of Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act; the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff in collusion with his brother, who had earlier filed a suit challenging the Sale Certificate in favour of the , which was rejected; and all the necessa sharers reflected in the jamabandi have not been made a party to the suit, as such, the plaint is liable to be rejected. Cites K. Umar Khan (SC), 2021 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 287; K. Umar Khan (SC), 2021 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 287; K. Umar Khan (SC), 2021 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 287; K. Umar Khan (SC), 2021 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 287; Traders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Traders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Traders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Traders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Tosh Apartments Pvt. Ltd. (SC), 2012 (4) R.C.R. Tosh Apartments Pvt. Ltd. (SC), 2012 (4) R.C.R. Tosh Apartments Pvt. Ltd. (SC), 2012 (4) R.C.R. Tosh Apartments Pvt. Ltd. (SC), 2012 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 308. (Civil) 308. (Civil) 308. (Civil) 308. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 contends that the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been rightly dismissed. Reliance has been pla for permanent injunction was also sought. The petitioner-defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC (Annexure n filed by the plaintiff in collusion Anand Parkash Khurania, his real brother, with an petitioner-defendant No.2 is the purchaser of the suit property for valuable consideration; and there are many co-sharers who have not been impleaded as a party to the suit, as such, the suit is liable to be dismissed. The said application has been dismissed by the trial Court by passing the impugned order dated 05.04.2025. Aggrieved by the rder, the petitioner is before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the of the suit property for valuable consideration; the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent is barred in view visions of Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act; the suit has been plaintiff in collusion with his brother, who had earlier filed a suit challenging the Sale Certificate in favour of the all the necessary parties, i.e. co- have not been made a party to the suit, as such, the plaint is liable to be rejected. Cites K. Akbar Ali Vs. K. Akbar Ali Vs. K. Akbar Ali Vs. K. Akbar Ali Vs. K. Umar Khan (SC), 2021 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 287; K. Umar Khan (SC), 2021 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 287; K. Umar Khan (SC), 2021 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 287; K. Umar Khan (SC), 2021 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 287; and Vidur Impex and Vidur Impex and Vidur Impex and Vidur Impex and Tosh Apartments Pvt. Ltd. (SC), 2012 (4) R.C.R. Tosh Apartments Pvt. Ltd. (SC), 2012 (4) R.C.R. Tosh Apartments Pvt. Ltd. (SC), 2012 (4) R.C.R. Tosh Apartments Pvt. Ltd. (SC), 2012 (4) R.C.R. , learned counsel for respondent No.1 contends that the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been rightly dismissed. Reliance has been placed on Dahi Dahi Dahi Dahiben ben ben ben ATUL SETHI 2026.07.30 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CR-3186-2025 Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) (D) Thr Lrs & Ors, Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) (D) Thr Lrs & Ors, Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) (D) Thr Lrs & Ors, Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) (D) Thr Lrs & Ors, R.C.R. (Civil) R.C.R. (Civil) R.C.R. (Civil) R.C.R. (Civil) 5. the paper-book. 6. Order VII Rule 11 CPC is meaningless Courts. The power conferred action is, however, subject to the condition laid down under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. “11. Rejection of plaint. cases: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp Court, prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to grave injustice to the plaintiff.” 2025 -4- Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) (D) Thr Lrs & Ors, Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) (D) Thr Lrs & Ors, Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) (D) Thr Lrs & Ors, Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) (D) Thr Lrs & Ors, R.C.R. (Civil) R.C.R. (Civil) R.C.R. (Civil) R.C.R. (Civil) 98 98 98 98. I have considered the aforesaid contentions and perused book. It is well-settled that the purpose of the provisions under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is to ensure that a litigation, which is meaningless, should not be permitted to waste judicial time of the . The power conferred upon the Court action is, however, subject to the condition laid down under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The said provisions are reproduced as under: 11. Rejection of plaint.— The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:— (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; (e) where it is not filed in duplicate; (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9; Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to grave injustice to the plaintiff.” Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) (D) Thr Lrs & Ors, Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) (D) Thr Lrs & Ors, Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) (D) Thr Lrs & Ors, Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) (D) Thr Lrs & Ors, 2020(3) 2020(3) 2020(3) 2020(3) I have considered the aforesaid contentions and perused settled that the purpose of the provisions under to ensure that a litigation, which is should not be permitted to waste judicial time of the on the Courts to terminate a civil action is, however, subject to the condition laid down under Order VII The said provisions are reproduced as under:- The plaint shall be rejected in the following where it does not disclose a cause of action; where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9; Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation paper shall not be extended unless the for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause ATUL SETHI 2026.07.30 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CR-3186-2025 7. the remedy under Order remedy, wherein the Court is empowered to summarily dismiss the threshold, without proceeding to record evidence, and conducting a trial, on the basis of the evidence adduced, if it is satisfied that the action should be terminated on any of the grounds contained in the said provisions. It is further hel disclosed, or the suit is barred by limitation, the Court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily continue with the proceedings. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court are as under: 2025 -5- The Hon’ble Apex Court in Dahiben (supra) Dahiben (supra) Dahiben (supra) Dahiben (supra) the remedy under Order VII Rule 11 CPC remedy, wherein the Court is empowered to summarily dismiss the threshold, without proceeding to record evidence, and conducting a trial, on the basis of the evidence adduced, if it is satisfied that the action should be terminated on any of the grounds contained in the said provisions. It is further held that if in a suit, no cause of action is disclosed, or the suit is barred by limitation, the Court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily continue with the proceedings. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court are as under: “12.1 We will first briefly touch upon the law applicable for deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which reads as under: xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx The remedy under Order VII Rule 11 is an independent and special remedy, wherein the Court is empowered to summarily dismiss a suit at the threshold, without proceeding to record evidence, and conducting a trial, on the basis of the evidence adduced, if it is satisfied that the action should be terminated on any of the grounds contained in this provision. The underlying object of Order VII Rule 11 (a) is that if in a suit, no cause of action is disclosed, or the suit is barred by limitation under Rule 11 (d), the Court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in the would be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation, so that further judicial time is not wasted. In Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi1 this Court held that the whole purpose of conferment of powers under this provision is to ensur that a litigation which is meaningless, and bound to prove abortive, should not be permitted to waste judicial time of the court, in the following words : “12. …The whole purpose of conferment of such power is to ensure that a litigation which is meaning prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time of Dahiben (supra) Dahiben (supra) Dahiben (supra) Dahiben (supra) has held that CPC is an independent and special remedy, wherein the Court is empowered to summarily dismiss a suit at the threshold, without proceeding to record evidence, and conducting a trial, on the basis of the evidence adduced, if it is satisfied that the action should be terminated on any of the grounds contained in the said d that if in a suit, no cause of action is disclosed, or the suit is barred by limitation, the Court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily continue with the proceedings. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court are as under:- will first briefly touch upon the law applicable for deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which reads xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx The remedy under Order VII Rule 11 is an independent and special empowered to summarily dismiss a suit at the threshold, without proceeding to record evidence, and conducting a trial, on the basis of the evidence adduced, if it is satisfied that the action should be terminated on any of the grounds The underlying object of Order VII Rule 11 (a) is that if in a suit, no cause of action is disclosed, or the suit is barred by limitation under Rule 11 (d), the Court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in the suit. In such a case, it would be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation, so that In Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi1 this Court held that the whole purpose of conferment of powers under this provision is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless, and bound to prove abortive, should not be permitted to waste judicial time of the court, in the “12. …The whole purpose of conferment of such power is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless, and bound to prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time of ATUL SETHI 2026.07.30 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CR-3186-2025 8. plaint (Annexure P been sought which are detailed in para No.1 of the plaint. It is the case of the plaintiff that Smt. Brijm owner-in-possession of the suit property, who had expired on 27.07.2021 and thereafter, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 have inherited the property in equal shares namely, Smt. Raman has already taken he concerned with the property. 9. has not been impleaded as a party. petitioner that other co Records are not impleaded. plaint would not be liable to be rejected 2025 -6- the Court, and exercise the mind of the respondent. The sword of Damocles need not be kept hanging over his head unnecessarily without point or purpose. Even if an ordinary civil litigation, the Court readily exercises the power to reject a plaint, if it does not disclose any cause of action.” 12.2 The power conferred on the court to terminate a civil action is, however, a drastic one, and the conditions enumerated in Order VII Rule 11 are required to be strictly adhered to. 12.3 Under Order VII Rule 11, a duty is cast on the Court to determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action by scrutinizing the averments in the plaint2, read in conjunction with the documents relied upon, or whether the suit is barred by any law. xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx 12.8 If on a meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and without any merit, and does not disclose a right to sue, the court wou power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Coming to the facts of the present case, scrutiny of the plaint (Annexure P-5) indicates that partition of various properties has been sought which are detailed in para No.1 of the plaint. It is the case of the plaintiff that Smt. Brijmohini, mother of th possession of the suit property, who had expired on 27.07.2021 and thereafter, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 have inherited the property in equal shares, whereas t namely, Smt. Raman has already taken he concerned with the property. The first grouse of the applicant is that has not been impleaded as a party. It is further the contention of the petitioner that other co-sharers of the land mentioned in the Rev are not impleaded. However, under these circumstances, the plaint would not be liable to be rejected, since necessary parties can be the Court, and exercise the mind of the respondent. The sword of Damocles need not be kept hanging over his head unnecessarily without point or purpose. Even if an ordinary il litigation, the Court readily exercises the power to reject a plaint, if it does not disclose any cause of action.” The power conferred on the court to terminate a civil action is, however, a drastic one, and the conditions enumerated in Order Rule 11 are required to be strictly adhered to. Under Order VII Rule 11, a duty is cast on the Court to determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action by scrutinizing the averments in the plaint2, read in conjunction with ed upon, or whether the suit is barred by any law. xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx If on a meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and without any merit, and does not disclose a right to sue, the court would be justified in exercising the power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.” Coming to the facts of the present case, scrutiny of the 5) indicates that partition of various properties has been sought which are detailed in para No.1 of the plaint. It is the case ohini, mother of the plaintiff, was the possession of the suit property, who had expired on 27.07.2021 and thereafter, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 have , whereas their married sister, namely, Smt. Raman has already taken her share and she is not The first grouse of the applicant is that the married sister t is further the contention of the sharers of the land mentioned in the Revenue nder these circumstances, the since necessary parties can be ATUL SETHI 2026.07.30 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CR-3186-2025 impleaded at any stage, at the instance of a party or even by the Court suo motu, any stage. 10. filed in collusion with the plea cannot be made as a ground VII Rule 11 CPC. As per the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, plaint can be rejected where it does not disclose the cause of action; where the claim is undervalued; stamped; where the suit is barred by any law; where the suit is not filed in duplicate; of Rule 9. summary manner while deciding an application unde 11 CPC. 10.1 various properties cannot be curtailed on the ground that one of the properties was purchased by the plaintiff through auction proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. 11. distinguishable on facts. 12. opinion that a well which does not require any Constitution 13. is accordingly dismissed. 2025 -7- impleaded at any stage, at the instance of a party or even by the Court and such point of consideration is open for the trial Court at The petitioner has taken another plea that suit has been filed in collusion with the defendant No.1- plea cannot be made as a ground for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. As per the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, plaint can be rejected where it does not disclose the cause of action; where the claim is undervalued; where the where the suit is barred by any law; where the suit is not filed in duplicate; or where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9. The plea taken by the petitioner cannot be decided in a summary manner while deciding an application unde The right of the plaintiff-respondent to seek partition of various properties cannot be curtailed on the ground that one of the properties was purchased by the plaintiff through auction proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. The case law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable on facts. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that a well-reasoned order has been passed by the trial Court, which does not require any interference under Article 227 of the ion. Consequently, present petition accordingly dismissed. impleaded at any stage, at the instance of a party or even by the Court tion is open for the trial Court at The petitioner has taken another plea that suit has been -brother of the plaintiff. Such for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. As per the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, a plaint can be rejected where it does not disclose the cause of action; where the plaint is not sufficiently where the suit is barred by any law; where the suit is not filed where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions The plea taken by the petitioner cannot be decided in a summary manner while deciding an application under Order VII Rule respondent to seek partition of various properties cannot be curtailed on the ground that one of the properties was purchased by the plaintiff through auction proceedings The case law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is In view of the above, this Court is of the considered reasoned order has been passed by the trial Court, interference under Article 227 of the resent petition being devoid of any merit, ATUL SETHI 2026.07.30 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CR-3186-2025 14. disposed of. 30.07.2026 30.07.2026 30.07.2026 30.07.2026 atulsethi Whether speaking / reasoned : Whether Reportable : 2025 -8- Pending Civil Misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 30.07.2026 30.07.2026 30.07.2026 30.07.2026 [HARPREET KAUR [HARPREET KAUR [HARPREET KAUR [HARPREET KAUR Whether speaking / reasoned : Whether Reportable : Pending Civil Misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand [HARPREET KAUR [HARPREET KAUR [HARPREET KAUR [HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN] JEEWAN] JEEWAN] JEEWAN] JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE Yes No Yes No ATUL SETHI 2026.07.30 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh