2026:HHC:15826 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No. : 66 of 2025 Reserved on : 05 th May, 2026 Decided on : 08 th May, 2026 Prem Singh Negi …Petitioner Versus Shambhu Prasad Purohit …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Ms. Shrutika Chauhan, Advocate vice Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate. For the respondent : None. Virender Singh, Judge (Oral) Petitioner–Prem Singh Negi has filed the present petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the CPC’) against the order dated 22.03.2025, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Court No.6, Shimla (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in CMA No.1212 of 2023, in Civil Suit No.327 of 2022, titled as Shambhu Prasad Purohit versus Prem Singh Negi. 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:15826 2. Vide order dated 22.03.2025, the learned trial Court has dismissed the application, filed by the petitioner, under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC, for rejection of the plaint. 3. Parties to the lis, are hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the learned trial Court. 4. Brief facts, leading to filing of the present petition, before this Court, as borne out from the documents annexed with the petition, may be summed up, as under:- 4.1. Plaintiff-Shambhu Prasad Purohit has filed a suit for damages of Rs.10,00,000/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum against defendant Prem Singh Negi, on the ground that he is permanent resident of Set No.35/1 Top Floor Nabha Estate, Shimla and is a renowned Astrologer, writer and orator having vast experience of more than seven decades in the field. According to him, he enjoyed the good reputation and prominent figure, not only in Himachal, but in northern India, on account of his mastery over Astrology. 3 2026:HHC:15826 4.2. It is the further case of the plaintiff that he is having his house in village and Post Office Bhauwala, Sundervan, Tehsil Vikasnagar, District Dehradoon, Uttarakhand. The defendant is also stated to be resident of the said village, having acquaintance with the plaintiff for the last number of years. 4.3. According to the plaintiff, in the month of April 2022, the defendant made a false complaint against the son of the plaintiff before the Police. Thereafter, the defendant started making false and baseless allegations/complaints against the plaintiff and his family members. The defendant allegedly started vilification campaign against the plaintiff and he has continued to do so, despite legal notice served upon him by the plaintiff, in which, he has been requested to desist from making such false allegations. 4.4. Highlighting the fact that due to the said vilification, his reputation in the society has lowered down, according to the plaintiff, cause of action has accrued to file the present suit, in the month of May 2022, when, the defendant made false and defamatory allegations and the 4 2026:HHC:15826 cause of action is stated to be recurring one. Thereafter, on 25.07.2022, when the legal notice was served upon the defendant and thereafter, on 8.8.2022, when the defendant sent reply to the legal notice dated 25.07.2022. 5. On the basis of the above facts, the plaintiff has sought the damages of Rs.10,00,000/-, along with interest. 6. When put to notice, the suit has been contested by the defendant, by filing the written statement. In the written statement, he has taken the preliminary objections that the suit is neither competent nor maintainable; the plaintiff has no locus standi; and the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit due to his act and conduct. 7. On merits, the contents of para 1 with regard to the residence of the plaintiff has not been disputed. According to the defendant, the plaintiff rented out his accommodation in village Bhauwala Sundervan, Tehsil Vikasnagar, Uttarakhand, to such persons, who had created hooliganism in the society and when, it become impossible for the defendant to live in the accommodation, he filed the complaint before the police, after intimating the plaintiff. 5 2026:HHC:15826 8. According to the defendant, he had never made any allegations, which can be termed as scandalous or with intention to defame the plaintiff with malicious purpose. Rest of the contents of the plaint have been denied. 9. In the said suit, an application, under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC, has been filed, with a prayer to reject the plaint, on the ground that the allegations levelled against defendant for damages are not tenable in the eyes of law, as the plaintiff is having no cause of action to file the suit within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Shimla. 10. According to the defendant, the averments in the plaint are with respect to State of Uttarakhand. The rejection of the plaint has mainly been sought on the ground that the plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendant to file the present suit. 11. This application has been contested by the plaintiff by filing reply, in which, it has specifically been pleaded that he is permanent resident of Set No.35/1, Top Floor, Nabha Estate, Shimla, living along with his family, as such, he has supported his action to file the suit for damages against the 6 2026:HHC:15826 defendant before the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court vide order dated 22.03.2025, has dismissed the application, under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC. 12. It is no longer res integra that while deciding the application, under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC, only the averments, as made in the application, are to be taken into consideration and not the defence taken by the defendant in the written statement. While deciding the application, under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC, it is incumbent upon the Court to see the allegations, as contained in the plaint, by plain reading of the contents, and not to dwell into it. 13. Learned trial Court, in the present case, has dismissed the application, mainly on the ground that the learned trial Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the matter. Although, the learned trial Court has not considered the plea of the applicant, qua ‘cause of action’, but, this does not mean that the order, impugned herein, is liable to be interfered with, on this score alone. 14. The term ‘cause of action’ has nowhere been defined in the CPC, however, according to the settled 7 2026:HHC:15826 proposition of law, the ‘cause of action’ means a bundle of necessary facts, which are required to be proved by the plaintiff, in order to get the relief, as claimed, in the plaint. In the plaint, the plaintiff has pleaded the following facts in paragraphs 10 and 11, which, are reproduced, as under:- “10. That cause of action accrued firstly in the month of May 2022 when the defendant made false and defamatory allegation against the plaintiff and his family thereafter the cause is recurring one since the defendant continuously made defamatory allegation against the plaintiff and thereafter on 25.07.2022 when the legal notice was served upon the defendant and thereafter on 08.08.2022 when the defendant sent reply to the legal notice dated 25.07.2022. 11. That the plaintiff is residing within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court and the plaintiff faced defamation at Shimla and his reputation got lowered down in the vicinity of his residence at Shimla, therefore, this Hon’ble Court has territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit.” 15. If, the above contents, are seen, in order to decide the application, under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC, this Court is of the view that, at this stage, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has no ‘cause of action’ to file the suit against the defendant. 8 2026:HHC:15826 16. If the facts and circumstances of the present case are seen in the light of the decision of this Court in Piar Singh versus Sarju Singh & Another, 2000 (2) Civil Court Cases 522 (H.P.), then, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has no ‘cause of action’ to file the present suit. Relevant paragraph 2 of the judgment, is reproduced, as under:- “2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. In order to determine whether by dismissal in default of the suit under Order 9 Rule 8 fresh suit was barred under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the only test is whether the cause of action in both the suits is the same or not. Similarly, for determining the fresh suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure not only the cause of action should be the same in the earlier suit and fresh suit but the plaintiff should not have committed any relief to which he was entitled in the earlier suit. The words ‘cause of action’ have not been defined in any enactment but the meaning of them has been judicially considered in various decisions. By now it is well settled that a cause of action for a suit comprises of all these facts which the plaintiff must aver and if traversed, prove to support his right to the judgment.” 17. Another fact, which also assumes significance, in the present case, is that while dismissing the application, the learned trial Court has framed the the issue:- 9 2026:HHC:15826 “Whether this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to try this suit?” 18. Learned counsel appearing for the defendant could not satisfy the judicial conscience of this Court, with regard to the fact, as to how, the present petition is maintainable, when preliminary issue, with regard to the territorial jurisdiction, has already been framed. 19. So far as the rejection of the plaint, which has been sought on the ground that the plaintiff is having no cause of action, is concerned, this Court is of the view that bare reading of the plaint does not give any occasion for the Court to draw an inference that the suit of the plaintiff does not disclose cause of action. 20. In view of the above discussion, the final conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court does not require any interference, but, for the reasons as stated above, Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. 21. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 10 2026:HHC:15826 22. Parties, through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 21st May, 2026. ( Virender Singh ) May 08, 2026( ps ) Judge