-1- 118 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-4726-2026 Date of Decision: 22.07.2026 LAXMAN ALIAS LACHMAN AND ANOTHER ...Petitioners Versus DILBAG SINGH AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Jasneet Mehra, Advocate for the petitioners. PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL) Present civil revision petition has been preferred under Article 227 of Constitution of India by petitioners/defendants No.6 and 7 being aggrieved by impugned order dated 23.02.2026 (Annexure P-5), passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sonipat, vide which their application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for rejection of plaint was dismissed. 2. Facts of the present case are not in dispute. The respondents/plaintiffs had preferred a suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain defendants from alienating or creating any third party interest on any portion of killa/khasra No.493 and to further restrain defendants from raising any construction or changing the nature of land in kila No.493 in any manner. It was claimed that suit property is joint and has not been partitioned by meets and bounds till date and, therefore, no specific portion CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.24 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4726-2026 -2- can be sold or claimed by any of the parties. Accordingly, injunction against co-sharers was sought. 3. On the other hand, petitioners/defendants No.6 and 7 took the stand that they had taken the suit property from Maha Singh in anticipation that Maha Singh would inherit the suit property from his father, however, suit property was not inherited by Maha Singh, but Bharat Singh father of Maha Singh had given the suit property to defendant No.1-Manoj who is son of Maha Singh and grandson of Bharat Singh. That at the time of execution of agreement to sell, Maha Singh had given possession to petitioners/defendants No.6 and 7 and for the last 30 years it is defendants who are in possession. They accordingly had preferred an application for rejection of plaint which was dismissed by impugned order. 4. In an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, plaint can only be rejected if any of the following conditions as mandated under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is made out :- “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-paper within a 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; CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.24 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4726-2026 -3- (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-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.]” 5. Faced with above noted limited scope of provisions of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, learned counsel for petitioners/defendants No.6 and 7 argued that no cause of action has been shown by respondents/plaintiffs, therefore, Order VII Rule 11 CPC is attracted in the present case. 6. However, on consideration of plaint, preferred by respondents/plaintiffs it is clearly made out that respondents/plaintiffs are clearly claiming themselves to be co-sharers in joint land and seeking injunction against other co-sharers or persons claiming to be co-sharers not to alienate or change the nature of property till the suit property is partitioned. Right of co-sharer to enjoy and seek entire property to be joint is a well known and established right. Co-sharers have no authority to alienate any specific portion of the suit property to the prejudice of other co-sharers and if that is done, any of the co-sharer can raise his grievance before the Court. Therefore, as far as suit of respondents/plaintiffs is concerned, it duly disclosed cause of action. Petitioners have also claimed possession over suit property and claimed that suit without seeking possession is not maintainable. Issue as to who is in possession is matter of fact which needs to be established by evidence. The defence taken by petitioners/defendants CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.24 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4726-2026 -4- No.6 and 7 cannot be taken into consideration at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, therefore, learned Court of first instance has rightly rejected the application preferred by petitioners/defendants No.6 and 7. 7. Revision petition is without any merit, hence is dismissed. 8. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of accordingly. (PARMOD GOYAL) 22.07.2026 JUDGE chiranjeev Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.24 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document