1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CR No. 91 of 2026 Decided on : 28.9.2026 Puran Chand & others … Petitioners Versus Gian Chand & others …Respondents _____________________________ _____ _________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? yes ___________________________________________________ For the Petitioners: Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Kiran Kumar, Advocate, for respondents No. 1(a) to 1(e) and 2. Mr. S.S. Rathore, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. Virender Singh, Judge Petitioners Puran Chand and others have filed the present petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment dated 12.9.2025, passed by the learned District Judge Kullu, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the First Appellate Court’), in Civil Appeal 2 No.40 of 2024, titled as, ‘Puran Chand and others versus Gian Chand and others’. 2. Vide judgment dated 12.9.2025, the learned First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal, preferred by the petitioners, affirming the order dated 18.9.2024, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Lahaul and Spiti at Kullu, (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the trial Court’), in Civil Suit No. 21 of 2023, titled as, ‘Gian Chand & anr. versus Puran Chand & ors.’. 3. By way of order dated 18.9.2024, the learned trial Court has dismissed the application, under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, read with Section 151 CPC, moved by the petitioners, in the said suit. 4. Parties to the lis are hereinafter referred to by the learned trial Court, as referred to, by the learned trial Court. 5. Brief facts leading to filing of the present petition, before this Court, are that plaintiffs Gian Chand and Pinku have filed the suit for declaration, against the defendants to the effect that father and grandfather of the plaintiffs died intestate, leaving behind the plaintiffs 3 as his legal heirs, and after his death, the plaintiffs have inherited the land comprised in Khasra No. 941/727, kita no. 112/277, situated in Mohal Haat, Patwar Circle, Bajaura, Kanungo Circle, and tehsil Bhuntar, District Kullu, HP, (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the suit land’), and the Will No. 95, dated 15.2.1990, purported to have been executed by late Shri Ghanthu, in favour of Tej Ram, predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, is forged and fictitious document, having been procured and manipulated by Tej Ram, in connivance with the marginal witnesses. 5.1 The plaintiffs have also challenged mutation No. 468 dated 31.7.1990, attested on the basis of mutation No. 2158, attested in favour of defendants, after the death of Tej Ram, qua the suit land. Further, the mortgage of the part of the suit land by defendant No. 1, in favour of defendant No. 4, is also prayed to be declared as null and void, with a consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendants from alienating or creating any charge over the suit land. 4 5.2 The said suit has been filed on the ground that the suit land was earlier owned and possessed by Shri Ghanthu Ram, as per Jamabandi for the year 2013-14. Ghanthu Ram was having two sons, namely Gian Chand, plaintiff No. 1 and Khajanu, the father of plaintiff No. 2. Ghanthu died intestate, leaving behind plaintiff No. 1 and Khajanu, as his LRs. 5.3 After the death of Ghanthu, the suit land has been inherited by the aforesaid two sons, and after the death of Khajanu, his share in the suit land has been inherited by plaintiff No.2, being his son. After the death of Ghanthu, the plaintiffs are enjoying the usufruct of the suit land peacefully and without any interference. 5.4 It is the further case of the plaintiffs that in the last week of September 2021, the defendants started causing unlawful interference, over the suit land, by proclaiming that they have become the owners of the same, on the basis of some alleged Will and tried to interfere in the possession of the plaintiffs. Thereafter, the plaintiffs visited the Patwari and obtained the relevant documents. After perusing the same, they came 5 to know about the fact that Tej Ram, the predecessor-in- interest of the defendants, had manipulated and fabricated Will No. 95 dated 15.2.1990. Thereafter, they had approached the defendants and apprised them that the said document has been forged by them, upon which, the defendants assuredly agreed to get the same cancelled. 5.5 Thereafter, the plaintiffs enjoyed the usufruct of the suit land peacefully and without any interference, from any quarter, under the impression that the defendants might have done the needful, as promised by them, but to the utter surprise of the plaintiffs, on 20.3.2023, defendants again came to the suit land and proclaimed that they would obtain the possession forcibly from the plaintiffs. 5.6 On 21.3.2023, the plaintiffs procured their revenue papers, from the revenue agency and came to know that Tej Ram, the predecessor-in-interest of defendants No. 1 to 3, has manipulated and fabricated the forged and fictitious Will No. 95, dated 15.2.1990, in order to grab the suit land. 6 5.7 Highlighting the physical and mental incapacity of Ghanthu Ram, the plaintiffs have further pleaded that the eviction proceedings were initiated against Ghanthu Ram by the Revenue Department, wherein, said Ghanthu Ram submitted all the documents, by putting his thumb impression, as he could not sign any paper, being illiterate. 5.8 According to the plaintiffs, the suit land was allotted to Ghanthu Ram as Nautor land, vide Patta No. 47/7, dated 8.6.1976, and mutation to this effect was attested on 5.2.1981. 5.9 Another fact to challenge the Will has also been pleaded that Ghanthu Ram was living with his family, i.e. the plaintiffs, at Gram Panchayat, Bajaura. In this regard, the plaintiffs have relied upon the copy of the Pariwar Register, according to which, he never lived with Tej Ram or his family members, at any point of time. 5.10 It is the further case of the plaintiffs that Tej Ram was having no relations with Ghanthu, nor Tej Ram or his family ever rendered any kind of service towards him. Ghanthu Ram was living with plaintiffs 7 and he was looked after by the plaintiffs, till his last breath. 5.11 The plaintiffs further pleaded that after the death of Ghanthu, Tej Ram got sanctioned mutation No. 88 dated 31.7.1990, in his favour, and after the death of Tej Ram, defendant also got sanctioned mutation No. 2158 attested, in their favour, and defendant No. 1 got the suit land mortgaged with defendant No. 4. All such mutations and mortgage are pleaded to be wrong, illegal, null and void. 5.12 According to the plaintiffs, after procuring all the documents, plaintiffs again asked the defendants to get the mutation attested, on the basis of forged and fictitious Will, cancelled. But, the defendants since 4.3.2023, had started threatening to dispossess them from the suit land. 5.13 According to the plaintiffs, the cause of action had accrued to them, for filing the suit in the month of September, 2021, when, the defendants started causing interference over the suit land by proclaiming that they had become owners of the suit land, on the basis of the 8 Will, and thereafter they admitted to get the revenue entries corrected, but since 20.3.2023, they had started again causing unlawful interference in the suit land, and lastly on 4.3.2023, when, defendants have flatly refused to admit the claim of the plaintiffs. 5.14 On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to decree the suit. 6. In the said suit, the defendants have moved an application, under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, for rejection of the plaint, on the grounds that the suit is barred by limitation; and the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit, as the plaintiffs have every knowledge and notice of mutation No. 468 dated 4/1/1991 and they were also aware about the fact that mutation qua the suit land was attested and accepted, in the presence of witnesses and plaintiff No. 1. According to the defendants, the plaintiffs were having the knowledge about rapat No. 438, entered in the revenue records, qua the possession of said Tej Ram over the suit land. 9 6.1 According to the defendants, plaintiffs and entire family had every knowledge and notice of the Will in question. The suit land is stated to have been acquired by NHPC for the construction of Bridge, vide award No. 6 of 2002, dated 19.1.2002 and notice qua the same was published, in the year 2001, calling for the objection against the said acquisition. The compensation had already been paid to defendant No.1 and father of defendant Nos. 2 and 3. However, the plaintiffs had not objected to the said acquisition. 6.2 The objections have also been made on the ground that plaintiff No. 1 had stood surety for defendant No. 1 before non-defendant No. 4 for the loan sanction, on the suit land. 6.3 Asserting the knowledge of the Will in question, a prayer has been made that the suit of the plaintiffs is hopelessly barred by limitation, as the same has been filed after 32 years, from the date of sanction of mutation No. 468 dated 4.4.1991. 6.4 Lastly, the defendants have also pleaded that the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit, 10 as they have every knowledge about Rapat No. 438, entered in the revenue record, qua the possession of said Tej Ram, over the suit land. 7. The application has been contested by the plaintiffs by filing the reply, in which, they have taken the preliminary objections qua the fact that the application is not maintainable, as Tej Ram, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, was not at all related to Ganthu, in any manner. As such, according to them, the question of execution of the Will by Ganthu in favour of Tej Ram, does not arise. According to the defendants, the said document is a result of fraud. The application is stated to have been filed, just to prolong the litigation. 7.1 On merits, the factual position, as mentioned in the application has not been disputed and according to them, suit is not barred by limitation. The plaintiffs have every knowledge of mutation No. 468 dated 4/4/1991. Relying upon the contents of the plaint, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 11 8. The learned trial court has dismissed the said application, vide order dated 8.1.2024, by holding that the defendants could not put forward any ground to reject the plaint, under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. 9. The said order has unsuccessfully been challenged by the defendants, before the learned First Appellate Court. 10. Aggrieved from the order, passed by the learned First Appellate Court, now the defendants are before this Court, by way of the present revision. 11. The order passed by the learned trial Court, as upheld by the learned First Appellate Court has been challenged, mainly on the grounds, as taken in the application, under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. 12. According to the defendants, suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be rejected, at the threshold, and both the Courts below have ignored the admitted and disputed facts that the stale suit has been filed, after 32 years. According to them, the declaration or cancellation of the document should have been filed within a period of three 12 years, from the date of right of accrual or knowledge of the fact, whereas, the Will was registered, in the year 1990 and the mutation was entered, in the year 1991 and the award of acquisition of the land was passed in the year 2002. 13. Highlighting the registration of the Will, the order passed by the learned trial Court, as upheld by the learned First Appellate Court, has been assailed on the ground that the registration of the Will carries a presumption of genuineness, under the Evidence Act. 14. On the basis of the above facts, Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate, appearing for defendants No. 1 to 3 has prayed that the present petition may be allowed, by setting aside the order passed by the learned trial Court, as upheld by the learned First Appellate Court and the plaint may kindly be rejected, under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, by allowing the application. 15. Per contra, Mr. Kiran Kumar, Advocate, appearing for the plaintiffs has supported the orders passed by the learned trial Court, as upheld by the 13 learned First Appellate Court, on the ground, that it is no longer res- integra that the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts, which, cannot be adjudicated under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. 16. Asserting the fact that the plaintiffs have every cause of action to file the suit, from the date of knowledge of the Will, according to the plaintiffs, the suit filed by them is within limitation. 17. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the petition. 18. The defendants are before this Court, under Section 115 of the CPC. The scope of interference, under Section 115 CPC, as well as, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has elaborately been discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a case titled as, ‘Bhudev Mallick Alias Bhudeb Mallick & anr. versus Ranajit Ghoshal & ors.’, 2025 INSC 175. Relevant paragraphs 53, 54 and 55 of the judgment are reproduced as under: 53. We are a bit disappointed with the manner in which the High Court dealt with the present litigation, more particularly while deciding the revision application filed 14 by the appellants herein against the order passed by the executing court. All that the High Court has said in one line is that it did not find any jurisdictional error in the order passed by the executing court ordering arrest, detention in a civil prison and attachment of the property of the appellants. We fail to understand, why the High Court was not able to see the gross error in the order passed by the executing court, be it called an error of law or a jurisdictional error. Undoubtedly, the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution must ascertain before interfering with any order passed by a subordinate court or tribunal whether the same suffers from any jurisdictional error. At times in litigation like the one on hand, the court should be guided by its conscience, more particularly keeping in mind the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and not strictly go by the term “jurisdictional error”. It is very easy for the High Court to say that there is no jurisdictional error and, therefore, no interference is warranted but before saying so, the High Court should be mindful of the consequences that would follow like arrest, detention in civil prison and attachment of property. 54. What is a jurisdictional error has been the subject of a legion of illuminating judicial decisions. In this case, however, we need concern ourselves with only one aspect of that matter and it is enough for us to refer in this connection to the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Joy Chand Lal Babu v. Kamalaksha Chaudhury, AIR 1949 PC 239, where Sir John Beaumont, delivering the judgment of the Board, observed inter alia as follows:- “although error in a decision of a Subordinate Court does not by itself involve that the subordinate Court has acted illegally or with material irregularity so as to justify 15 interference in revision under Subsection (c). nevertheless if the erroneous decision results in the subordinate Court exercising a jurisdiction, not vested in it by law or failing to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, a case for revision arises under Sub-section (a) or Sub-section (b) and Sub section (c) can be ignored.” 55. If, therefore, an error, be it an error of fact or of law, is such that the erroneous decision has resulted in the subordinate Court or tribunal exercising jurisdiction, not vested in it by law, or in its having failed to exercise jurisdiction, vested in it by law, that will come within the scope of Section 115 of the Code or, for the matter of that, of Article 227 of the Constitution, as the case may be. This error may have resulted from a violation of rules of natural justice, by taking into consideration matters which are extraneous and irrelevant, or by substituting judicial consideration by bias, based on suspicion, arising from those extraneous matters or from any other cause whatsoever but if it has affected the assumption or exercise of jurisdiction, as envisaged above, it will be a jurisdictional error for purposes of the above Article.” 19. Being guided by the above decision, now this Court would proceed further to ascertain the fact whether the application, under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC has wrongly been dismissed, by the learned trial Court? 20. At the time of deciding the said application, no amount of evidence or merit of the controversy can be 16 examined, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case titled as, Eldeco Housing and Industries Ltd. versus Ashok Vidyarthi & others, reported in 2023 Live Law SC1033. Relevant paragraph-26 of the judgment is reproduced as under: “26. However, the fact remains that all the aforesaid documents, referred to by the respondent in support of his plea for rejection of the plaint, cannot be considered at this stage, as these are not part of the record with the Court filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. As noticed above, no amount of evidence or merits of the controversy can be examined at the stage of decision of the application, under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Hence, in our view, the impugned order of the High Court, passed in the Review Application deserves to be set aside. Ordered accordingly.” 21. In this case, the learned counsel for the defendants has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case titled as, Raghwendra Sharan Singh versus Ram Prasanna Singh (dead) by legal representatives’ reported in 2020 (16) SCC 601. Relevant paragraph 9 of the judgment is reproduced as under: “9. Now, so far as the application on behalf of the original plaintiff and even the observations made by the learned trial Court as well as the High Court that the question 17 with respect to the limitation is a mixed question of law and facts, which can be decided only after the parties lead the evidence is concerned, as observed and held by this Court in the cases of Sham Lal alias Kuldip (supra); N.V. Srinivas Murthy (supra) as well as in the case of Ram Prakash Gupta (supra), considering the averments in the plaint if it is found that the suit is clearly barred by law of limitation, the same can be rejected in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC.” 22. In view of paragraph-4 of the plaint, the plaintiffs have pleaded that in the last week of September 2021, the defendants had started causing unlawful interference in the suit land, by proclaiming themselves to be the owners of the suit land, on the basis of some alleged Will, and according to the plaintiffs, thereafter, they had contacted the revenue officials and then, came to know about the sanctioning of mutation No. 95 dated 15.02.1990. 23. Admittedly, in para-6 of the plaint, the plaintiffs have again stated that on 20.03.2023, when, the defendants again came to the suit land and proclaimed themselves to be the owners of the suit land, then the plaintiffs, after obtaining the revenue papers, came to know that Tej Ram, the predecessor-in-interest of the 18 defendants No. 1 to 3, manipulated and fabricated the Will No. 95 dated 15.02.1990. 24. At the best, it can be said that the present case is a classical example of loose drafting, as the knowledge of the Will No. 95 has been pleaded twice, firstly, in the month of September, 2021 and thereafter, in the month of March, 2023. 25. Considering the low legal literacy of the Indian masses, the said fact, to the considered opinion of this Court, is not fatal for the case of the plaintiffs, warranting the interference, that too, under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. 26. At the best, it can be said that the plaintiffs came to know about the Will, allegedly executed by Ghanthu in the month of September, 2021. As such, the suit, which has been filed by them, in the month of April, 2023, cannot be said to be barred by limitation, from any stretch of imagination. 27. In this regard, the plaintiffs have pleaded the cause of action in paragraph 17 of the plaint, which is reproduced as under: 19 “ 17. That the cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiffs firstly in the month of September, 2021 when the defendants started causing interference over the suit land by proclaiming that they have become owners of the suit land on the basis of alleged will and thereafter they admitted to get the revenue entries corrected, but since 20th day of March, 2023 they again started causing unlawful interference in the suit land and lastly on 1 day of April, st 2023 when the defendants have flatly refused to admit the claim of the plaintiffs within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court and as such, this Hon’ble Court has got jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit.” 28. The term "cause of action" has nowhere been defined in the CPC, however, the cause of action means a bundle of essential facts, which are required to be established by the plaintiffs to succeed in a lis. 29. Bare reading of the plaint nowhere leads this Court to conclude that the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by limitation. Moreover, the question of limitation is mixed question of law and facts, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Babasaheb Ramdas Shirole & ors. versus Rohit Enterprises & ors’, reported in 2025 (4) CCC 346. Relevant paragraphs 7 to 9 of the judgment is reproduced as under: “7. As regards the first aspect, it is well settled that limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and unless 20 the same is patently and unequivocally clear, it cannot form a ground under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for non-suiting a plaintiff. In the case on hand, perusal of the plaint indicates that the plaintiffs claimed that the cause of action arose in October 2023, when defendant No. 1 started quarrelling with them for the first time, showing his true colors by trying to grab the suit properties and interfering with their peaceful possession over the same. 8. In the light of this averment, the High Court clearly erred in jumping to the conclusion that there was a delay of 10 years on the part of the plaintiffs in assailing the sale deed executed in the year 2013. The High Court lost sight of the fact that it was the plaintiffs' case that the said sale deed was only a sham and was coupled with a development agreement executed on the same day. 9. These were issues that required to be examined on evidence and could not have been summarily rejected by the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.” 30. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case titled as, ‘Sopan Sukhdev Sable and others versus Assistant Charity Commissioner and others’ reported in 2004 (3) SCC 137, has given the directions as to how the pleadings are to be considered for deciding the application, under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Relevant paragraph 15 of the judgment is reproduced as under: “15. There cannot be any compartmentalization, dissection, segregation and inversions of the language of various paragraphs in the plaint. If such a course is 21 adopted it would run counter to the cardinal canon of interpretation according to which a pleading has to be read as a whole to ascertain its true import. It is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage and to read it out of the context in isolation. Although it is the substance and not merely the form that has to be looked into, the pleading has to be construed as it stands without addition or subtraction or words or change of its apparent grammatical sense. The intention of the party concerned is to be gathered primarily from the tenor and terms of his pleadings taken as a whole. At the same time it should be borne in mind that no pedantic approach should be adopted to defeat justice on hair-splitting technicalities.” 31. Considering all these facts, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the well-reasoned order, passed by the learned trial Court, which has rightly been upheld by the learned First Appellate Court. 32. With these observations, the present petition is dismissed. 33. The parties to the lis, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court, on 12.10.2026. 34. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. 22 35. Any of the observations, made hereinabove, shall not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case, as these observations, are confined, only, to the disposal of the present application. 36. Record be sent back forthwith. (Virender Singh) 28.9.2026 Judge (Kalpana)