The central legal point established is the obligation to decide the application under Order 10 CPC before invoking the provision of Order 7, Rule 11 CPC.

JUDGMENT

Raj Mohan Singh, J . - Petitioner has assailed the order dated 11.08.2016 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, whereby application filed by the petitioner under Order 7, Rule 11 read with section 151 CPC for rejection of the plaint was dismissed.

2. At the time of issuance of notice of motion on 27.11.2015, following order was passed:-

"Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that parties are closely related being descendants of Sham Lal. Properties were partitioned amongst the stakeholders by virtue of three partition instruments.

Firstly it was done by way of registered partition dated 12.11.1959 and lastly by way of arbitral award dated 03.09.1977 which was ultimately made as a Rule of Court as well. After moving application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC by the petitioner, an application for admission and denial of documents was also moved asking the defendants specifically to make statement in the context of certified copies of documents attached with the application. Learned counsel relies upon Vikas Aggarwal vs. Anubha AIR 2002 Supreme Court 1796 to contend that powers in terms of Order 7, Rule 11 CPC could have been exercised in a given situation. Notice of motion for 03.02.2016. Dasti as well. Trial Court is directed to adjourn the proceedings beyond the date fixed by this Court."

3. Perusal of the record would show that an application under Order 10 Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 CPC was filed by the petitioner on 18.07.2014 (Annexure P-12) with this petition. Para No.2 of the application reads as under:-

"2. That on the Court file, certified copies of certain judgments and decrees and other proceedings have been filed which documents are unimpeachable in nature. It is submitted that the plaintiff himself was a party in respect of partition of properties which had taken place by appointing Sh. Om Parkash Singla, Uncle (Phupha) of the parties way back on 14.09.1977 in which the claim for arbitration proceedings was admitted by the present plaintiff and further the parties partitioned the properties by accepting the award of the Arbitrator and the said award was made a Rule of the Court on 04.11.1977. By virtue of the said award, the property situated at Link Road, Old Faridabad came to the exclusive share of Smt. Gindori Devi. It is further submitted that there was a civil suit titled as Suresh Chand Amar and others vs. Sh. Harish Chand and others in which the present plaintiff was also a party and it was a suit for partition filed on 06.12.1972 and ultimately a compromise was arrived at between the parties on 19.07.1974 in which the present plaintiff was also a party and signatory. The said suit ultimately culminated into a decree dated 19.07.1974. Certified copies of all these documents and other documents which are Court proceedings are unimpeachable and are on the Court file."

4. While passing the impugned order, contention of the petitioner along with other applicants/defendants was noticed in para No.4 of the impugned order and ultimately, the Court decided that firstly, parties shall be called to admit the documents in terms of Vikas Aggarwal's case (supra) i.e. for getting the pleadings clear after removal of ambiguity before the parties are sent to trial. Before framing of issues, material facts and particulars are to be brought on record. In view of above, the trial Court preferred to decide the application under Order 7, Rule 11 read with section 151 CPC prior to decision of the application under Order 10 CPC.

5. Order 7, Rule 1 CPC (J) (inserted vide amendment of Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh dated 15.03.1991), prescribes that the plaint shall contain a statement to the effect that no suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating on the same grounds has been previously instituted or finally decided by a Court of competent jurisdiction or limited jurisdiction, and if so, with what results.

6. In terms of Order 7, Rule 11 CPC,