CR-3913-2026 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-3913-2026 Date of decision: 08.05.2026 Uniworld City Apartment Through its Authorized Representa)ves Mr. Sunil Kumar ...Pe))oner Versus Mukesh and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Rajiv K. Virmani, Advocate and Mr. Akshay Ahuja, Advocate for the pe))oner. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present civil revision pe))on has been filed by the defendant-pe))oner assailing the order dated 08.01.2026 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram, whereby the applica)on filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejec)on of the plaint has been dismissed. 2. Briefly stated, the plain)ffs ins)tuted a suit seeking relief of mandatory and permanent injunc)on alleging illegal obstruc)on in ingress and egress to the EWS flats, disconnec)on of electricity and water supply and raising of an illegal wall by the defendants. 3. During pendency of the suit, the defendant-pe))oner moved an applica)on under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejec)on of the plaint primarily on the grounds that: (i) the suit was barred under Sec)on 89 of the Haryana Registra)on and Regula)on of Socie)es Act, 2012; (ii) the plaint did not disclose any cause of ac)on; (iii) the suit was barred by the principle of res sub judice; and (iv) the suit suffered from non-joinder of YOGESH MEHTA 2026.05.08 15:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3913-2026 [2] necessary par)es. The learned trial Court, aDer considering the maEer, dismissed the applica)on vide the impugned order. 4. Assailing the order, learned counsel for the pe))oner contends that the civil Court lacked jurisdic)on in view of the statutory bar contained in Sec)on 89 of the Haryana Registra)on and Regula)on of Socie)es Act, 2012. It is further argued that the plaint does not disclose a valid cause of ac)on and that the suit deserves rejec)on on account of pendency of earlier proceedings and non-impleadment of necessary par)es. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the pe))oner and have gone through the paper-book with due considera)on. 6. At the outset, it requires to be no)ced that while considering an applica)on under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court is required to examine only the averments contained in the plaint and the documents appended therewith. The defence taken by the defendant in the wriEen statement or in the applica)on for rejec)on of plaint cannot be looked into at that stage. The law on this aspect is too well seEled to require elaborate discussion. 7. The principal conten)on raised by the pe))oner pertains to the alleged bar of jurisdic)on under Sec)on 89 of the Haryana Registra)on and Regula)on of Socie)es Act, 2012. The learned trial Court has rightly observed that the plain)ffs have sought reliefs of mandatory and permanent injunc)on pertaining to restora)on of electricity and water supply, removal of obstruc)on and protec)on of ingress and egress to the EWS flats. Such reliefs are essen)ally civil in nature and cannot be said, at this stage, to fall exclusively within the adjudicatory domain of the authori)es cons)tuted under the 2012 Act. 8. The exclusion of jurisdic)on of civil Courts is not to be readily YOGESH MEHTA 2026.05.08 15:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3913-2026 [3] inferred unless the statute expressly or by necessary implica)on bars such jurisdic)on. Even where a special statute creates a forum, the jurisdic)on of the civil Court survives in maEers where the relief claimed is beyond the competence of the statutory authority or where immediate civil remedies such as injunc)on are sought. The learned trial Court has correctly relied upon the principles laid down by the Cons)tu)on Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1969 SC 78, while holding that the present dispute cannot be held to be barred outright at the threshold. 9. Equally meritless is the argument regarding absence of cause of ac)on. A meaningful reading of the plaint clearly shows that the plain)ffs have specifically pleaded the facts cons)tu)ng the alleged infringement of their civil rights and the consequen)al cause of ac)on for ins)tu)on of the suit. Whether such asser)ons are ul)mately proved or not is a maEer to be examined during trial aDer the par)es lead evidence. At the stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court is not expected to conduct a roving enquiry into the truthfulness of the pleadings. 10. The plea of res sub judice has also been rightly rejected by the learned trial Court. The applicability of Sec)on 10 CPC ordinarily involves examina)on of pleadings, issues and subject maEer involved in the previously ins)tuted proceedings. Such determina)on necessarily requires considera)on of material beyond the plaint. Since the scope of adjudica)on under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is confined to the plaint averments alone, the said objec)on could not have furnished a valid ground for rejec)on of the plaint. 11. Likewise, the objec)on regarding non-joinder of necessary par)es does not fall within the ambit of Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Whether a YOGESH MEHTA 2026.05.08 15:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3913-2026 [4] par)cular party is necessary or proper is essen)ally a mixed ques)on of law and fact which requires adjudica)on on the basis of pleadings and evidence. The plaint cannot be rejected merely on such objec)on. The learned trial Court has rightly observed that the plain)ff, being dominus li)s, is en)tled to choose the persons against whom relief is sought, subject of course to legal consequences to be determined during trial. 12. This Court finds that the impugned order is well reasoned and based upon correct apprecia)on of the seEled legal principles governing the exercise of jurisdic)on under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. No jurisdic)onal error, patent illegality or material irregularity has been pointed out warran)ng interference in exercise of revisional jurisdic)on. 13. It is trite that revisional jurisdic)on under Sec)on 115 CPC is supervisory and limited in scope. Unless the order impugned suffers from perversity or failure of jus)ce, interference is not warranted merely because another view may also be possible. 14. Consequently, finding no merit in the present revision pe))on, the same is hereby dismissed. Nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the controversy pending before the learned trial Court. Pending miscellaneous applica)ons, if any, shall also stand disposed of. 08.05.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.05.08 15:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document