Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2026 DAILYLAW 31434 (PNJ)

ANANT RAM v. GURJIT SINGH

CR/5409/2026 · 2026-07-17

Amarjot Bhatti

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

129 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CCCCRRRR----5555444400009999----2222000022226666 Date of Decision:- 17.07.2026 ANANT RAM ....Petitioner Vs. GURJIT SINGH ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI Present: Mr. Gurinder Singh Dhot, Advocate for petitioner. ***** AMARJOT BHATTI, J. (ORAL) 1. Petitioner has filed instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 08.05.2026 passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambala (Annexure P-1) in Civil Suit No.1597-2018 titled as “Gurjit Singh Vs. Anant Ram” whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for rejection of plaint has been dismissed without any valid reason. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant pointed out that Gurjit Singh filed suit for recovery of Rs.14, 29, 360/- along with interest (Annexure P-3) on the basis of advance amount received. The agreement to sell was never executed. Property measuring 9 acres 5 kanals 10 marlas is situated in village Malikpur, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra, however, SANDEEP KUMAR 2026.07.20 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CCCCRRRR----5555444400009999----2222000022226666 ----2222---- the suit for recovery has been filed in Ambala city. The Courts of Ambala had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the said suit. On account of this, present petitioner filed application under Order 7 Rule 1, 11 and under Order 1, 6, read with Section 151 CPC for rejection of plaint (Annexure P-4). Said application was contested by respondent-plaintiff by filing reply (Annexure P-5) and finally the application was rejected by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambala by passing order dated 08.05.2026. Considering the aforesaid factual position, no cause of action accrued to the respondent- plaintiff at Ambala, therefore, plaint presented in the Court at Ambala is liable to be rejected by accepting the application. 3. Facts relating to present case are clear from the documents annexed with the petition. No purpose would be served by issuing notice to the respondent. Therefore, service of respondent is dispensed with. 4. I have considered the arguments and the documents relied upon by the petitioner/defendant. Present petitioner filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint and for disposal of said application, the Court is required to examine the pleadings of the plaint. At this stage, no other document can be looked into. Copy of plaint seeking recovery of Rs.14,29,360/- along with interest is Annexure P-3. Said suit for recovery is filed on the basis of advance amount received vide Annexure P-2. Admittedly, the land is situated in village Malikpur, Tehsil Pehowa. It cannot be ignored that present suit is for recovery and not for specific performance of any agreement to sell. As per the facts narrated in the plaint, advance money by way of cash amount and cheques were given to the defendants at their residential house in Ambala City, Haryana and on that basis suit for SANDEEP KUMAR 2026.07.20 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CCCCRRRR----5555444400009999----2222000022226666 ----3333---- recovery has been filed in Ambala City. The stand taken by the petitioner/defendant in the application is matter of trial. He is at liberty to raise objections while filing his written statement. Facts of the case were rightly considered by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambala for disposal of application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and the same does not require any interference. With the aforesaid observations, the impugned order dated 08.05.2026 passed by the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambala (Annexure P- 1), is hereby upheld. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition filed by the petitioner/defendant, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. 5. Pending miscellaneous application (s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly as well. (AMARJOT BHATTI) JUDGE 17.07.2026 snd Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No. Whether reportable : Yes/No SANDEEP KUMAR 2026.07.20 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document