JUDGMENT :

JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, J.

1. An application for rejection of plaint moved at the stage of arguments by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short O7 R11 CPC) has been turned down by the learned trial Court. Aggrieved, the defendants have filed instant petition.

2. Facts

2(i) A civil suit bearing No. 100/2004 was filed by the respondent for declaration to the effect that he was owner of the suit land. Various other reliefs were also prayed including permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from proclaiming any right, title or interest over the suit land. Further relief of possession by way of demolition of structure of petrol pump over the suit land was also prayed. Another prayer for recovery of rent and damages was also made. The cause title of the plaint reflected the plaintiff as son of Shri Harnam Singh Pathania.

2(ii) Written statement on behalf of the defendants was filed in the year 2004 itself, contesting the suit on various grounds available to them. It was also pleaded in the written statement that the plaintiff is son of General Anant Singh Pathania, who never gave the plaintiff in adoption to Shri Harnam Singh Pathania. Latter had no right to adopt the plaintiff as his son. The adoption of plaintiff by Harnam Singh was asserted to be contrary to the provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act.

2(iii) The plaint was amended on 27.06.2007 by incorporating the word ‘adopted son’ in the plaint. Pursuant to the amendment, the plaintiff projected himself as an adopted son of Shri Harnam Singh Pathania. The order dated 27.06.2007 was not assailed by the defendants.

2(iv) After closure of the evidence led by the parties, the matter was fixed for arguments. At that stage, on 12.09.2018, the defendants moved an application under O7 R11 (a) and (d) CPC for rejection of plaint on the ground that plaintiff had filed the suit as an adopted son of Shri Harnam Singh Pathania, whereas in a judgment dated 27.11.2002 delivered in another civil suit No. 265 of 1997, learned Sub Judge 1st Class (Court No.1), Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. had held that the plaintiff was not the adopted son of Shri Harnam Singh Pathania. Relying upon this judgment, it was contended by the defendants that the deed of adoption was signed only by Shri Harnam Singh Pathania and not by the plaintiff’s natural father-General Anant Singh Pathania. Therefore, adoption deed cannot prove that the plaintiff was legally adopted by late Shri Harnam Singh Pathania. It was also contended that the present suit was filed by the plaintiff asserting his ownership over the suit land in the capacity of being an adopted son of Shri Harnam Singh Pathania. Since the plaintiff has been held to be not a legally adopted son of Shri Harnam Singh Pathania vide judgment dated 27.11.2002, therefore, the entire edifice of the present civil suit goes.

2(v) The plaintiff contested this application and submitted that matter in respect of his adoption stood already adjudicated by this Court in CMPMO Nos. 2, 3 and 6 of 2007 as well as by certain other orders, referred to in the reply. It was also submitted that amendment of the plaint was allowed by the learned trial Court on 27.06.2007, whereby the word ‘adopted’ was allowed to be incorporated in the plaint. No written statement was filed to the amended plaint by the defendants, rather a statement was made that earlier written statement on record be read as written statement to the amended plaint. It was asserted that plaintiff was given in adoption by his natural father General Anant Singh to Shri Harnam Singh Pathania (real brother of General Anant Singh) and that plaintiff was absolute owner of suit property being an adopted son of late Shri Harnam Singh. Mutation No.69 dated 01.06.1990 had already been attested in this regard in plaintiff’s favour. It was also pleaded that Civil Suit No. 265 of 1997 was withdrawn with permission of appellate Court, therefore, reliance upon the judgment