( 2026:HHC:7504 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Revision No.167 of 2025 Decided on: 17thMarch, 2026 Nek Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus Champa Devi and another ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr.K.R. Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.B.S. Chauhan, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sahil Sharma, Advocate. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) By way of present petition, the petitioners/defendants, who had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of plaint, have laid challenge to the order dated 20.09.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge, Court No.(5), Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. in CMA No.1996 of 2025, whereby their application was rejected. 2. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioners, hereinafter to be referred as defendants, that learned trial Court has erred while rejecting the application 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. ( 2026:HHC:7504 ) 2 and as per settled preposition of law, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be filed at any stage and this Court can exercise its revisional jurisdiction to correct the error. 3. The respondents/plaintiffs, hereinafter referred as plaintiffs have preferred a suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants in the year 2007. The decree, which is sought in the suit, is to the effect that deceased Mangal Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs had jointly succeeded the non-occupancy rights in the suit land to the extent of half share along-with Shri Basant Singh and further declaration to the effect that plaintiffs have succeeded the tenancy rights of deceased Mangal Singh qua the suit land to the extent of half share. It has also been prayed thata decree for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are successors in interest qua the suit land on the ground that non-occupancy tenancy rights in the suit land could not be bequeathed in favour of the defendants nor the defendants could be succeeded the non-occupancy tenancy rights in the suit land. Further declaration has been sought to the effect that mutation No.22 dated 19.06.2006 of Mauja Mewag, Tehsil and District Shimla, is wrong, illegal and unlawful and is not bindings upon the plaintiffs. Further, ( 2026:HHC:7504 ) 3 a decree for injunction has been sought restraining the defendants from interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. 4. It has been pleaded in the plaint that cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiffs on 12.12.1992, upon the death of Shri Mangal Singh. Thereafter, the cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiffs on the death of Shri Basant Singh on 17.05.2004 and thereafter on 19.06.2006 when mutation No.22 of succession was illegally and unlawfully attested in favour of the defendants on the basis of the Will. Thereafter, on dated 02.01.2007, when the defendants tried to interfere in the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. The cause of action is still continuing in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants. 5. Defendants in the application for rejection of plaint had pleaded that as per pleadings in the plaint, it has come on record that late Shri Attar Singh had died either earlier in 1927 or even before 1927, as the concerned Patwari, in the remarks column of mutation proceedings, had recorded it as 15.03.1927. Further, as per the statement of plaintiff namely Champa Devi, she has categorically admitted that date of birth of late Shri Mangal Singh, as recorded in the ( 2026:HHC:7504 ) 4 service record, was 14.01.1929 and, therefore, it is beyond comprehension that late Shri Mangal Singh was not son of Attar Singh as Attar Singh admittedly died about 2½ to 3 years i.e. prior to the birth of deceased Mangal Singh. The suit instituted by the plaintiffs is without any cause of action. Further, Mangal Singh had a legally wedded wife namely, Smt.Kalawati, who survived late Shri Mangal Singh, however, she died on 21.07.2004. Hence, the suit is hopelessly time barred. 6. The plaintiffs filed reply to the application and submitted that the defendants have examined all the witnesses cited in the list of witnesses and further defendant No.1 has also examined himself. The application, at this belated stage, when the plaintiffs have to produce the evidence, in rebuttal, is not maintainable. 7. On merits, the averments made in the application were denied and it was submitted that the cause of action had accrued to the plaintiffs and further the Court at the time of considering the application for rejection of plaint had only to see the contents of the plaint and the documents appended therewith. ( 2026:HHC:7504 ) 5 8. The learned trial Court has rejected the application filed by the defendants holding that for the purpose of deciding the application, it is only the contents of the plaint, which are to be seen and further the documents referred to should also be treated as part of the plaint and the perusal of the plaint and the documents reveals that the plaintiffs have cause of action and the ground of delay is not to be considered at this stage, as it is a mixed question of law and fact as held by this Court in CMPMO No.603 of 2022, titled, Surjeet Singh vs. Ankush Thakur and another. 9. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the case file. 10. It is not in dispute that the evidence has been led by the defendants in the suit and the matter is now listed for the evidence to be produced by the plaintiffs in rebuttal. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that once it is evident from the perusal of the plaint that the suit is hopelessly time barred and further the application can be filed at any stage, the learned trial Court has erred while rejecting the application. There is no quarrel with regard to the preposition that the application for rejection of plaint can be filed at any stage. However, from a perusal of the plaint ( 2026:HHC:7504 ) 6 and the reliefs claimed therein, it cannot be construed, at this stage, that there was no cause of action available to the plaintiffs to file the suit. Not only this, the plaintiffs have also prayed for a declaration to the effect that mutation No. 22 dated 29.06.2006 be declared wrong, illegal and unlawful and not binding. From the cumulative perusal of the plaint, it cannot be said at this stage that the suit is time barred and the said issue is to be decided on the basis of the evidence. 11. Learned counsel for the defendants has placed heavy reliance on the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dahiben vs.Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) (D) through LRs and others, 2021 (1) Civil Court Cases 210, Ramisetty Venkatanna and another vs. Nasyam Jamal Saheb and others, 2023 (3) Civil Court Cases, 001 and Uma Devi and others vs. Anand Kumar and others, 2025 (2) Civil Court Cases 420 and argued that since the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that clever drafting in a plaint can be looked into while considering an application for rejection of plaint and further such an application can be filed at any stage, the learned trial Court erred in rejecting the plaint. ( 2026:HHC:7504 ) 7 12. As already held above, the Court has to consider the application on the basis of pleadings in the plaint and no material other than the same can be looked into. In the present case, as already recorded hereinabove, a bare perusal of the plaint coupled with the relief claimed therein does not indicate at this stage that the suit is barred by limitation. 13. This Court can also not lose sight of the fact that the parties have led their evidence and now the matter is listed for recording evidence in rebuttal and furthermore the learned trial Court has already framed issue qua limitation. The suit was instituted in the year 2007 and the application, for rejection of plaint was filed in the year 2025, when the matter was listed for recording evidence of defendants in the month of July, 2025. This fact can also not be ignored by this Court that for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction vested with this Court under Section 115 CPC, this Court can interfere with the orders passed by the trial Courts only in case there is illegality or material irregularity having been committed by the trial Court. Learned trial Court had the power to consider the application, which was filed by the defendants for rejection of plaint and rightly rejected the same after considering the judgment passed by this Court as ( 2026:HHC:7504 ) 8 well as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, referred to therein and since the matter is now almost ripened for final adjudication, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that any observations made hereinabove, shall not influence the learned trial Court while hearing the matter on merits. 14. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 31.03.2026. ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) March 17, 2026 Judge (naveen)