SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(P&H) 2065

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Raj Mohan Singh, J.
Satish Kumar Saini - Appellant
Versus
Jasbir Kaur And Another - Respondent
Civil Revision No. 2301 of 2017
Decided On : 21-05-2019

Advocates Appeared:
Satish Kumar Saini (In Person), Advocate, Respondent No 1 In Person, Advocate, O.P. Narang, Advocate

The plea under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC should be exercised with caution, and issues of jurisdiction, cause of action, and limitation should be decided after framing necessary issues and leading of evidence.

Headnote:

Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - Jurisdiction, Cause of Action, Limitation - Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (Second) Ordinance, 2002 - Civil Procedure Code

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of ownership and partition of properties, alleging that defendant No.1 acquired the properties under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (Second) Ordinance, 2002. Plaintiff claimed joint purchase of properties with defendant No.2, but defendant No.2 allegedly attempted to sell the properties to a third party. Various litigations ensued, and defendant No.2 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC challenging the jurisdiction, cause of action, and limitation of the suit.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the issues of jurisdiction, cause of action, and limitation could only be decided after framing necessary issues and leading of evidence. The court emphasized that the plea under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC should be exercised with caution and that triable issues cannot be ignored at this stage.

Issues: Jurisdiction, cause of action, limitation, and the validity of the plaintiff's pleadings regarding joint purchase of properties.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plea under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC should be carefully considered and that the issues raised by the petitioner could only be addressed after framing of necessary issues and leading of evidence.

Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed as devoid of merits, and the court emphasized that the dismissal did not constitute a final expression on the merits of the case. The trial court was directed to proceed with the suit on its merits in accordance with the law.

JUDGMENT

Raj Mohan Singh, J. - Petitioner has assailed the order dated 11.11.2016 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandigarh vide which application filed by defendant No.2/petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was dismissed.

2. Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that she is owner to the extent of 63.70% share and defendant No.2 is owner to the extent of 36.30% share in the six properties as described in the headnote of the plaint. Mandatory injunction was also sought, directing defendant No.1 to handover the possession of the aforesaid share in the properties to the plaintiff and handover the possession of aforesaid share of defendant No.2 and to issue and register the sale certificate in favour of the plaintiff and defendant No.2 to the extent of their shares. Plaintiff sought partition of the aforesaid properties to the extent of their shares. Plaintiff also sought permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from further alienating the suit property in any manner.

3. Defendant No.1 is LIC Housing Finance Limited. It acquired the rights of ownership and possession of the suit properties under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (Second) Ordinance, 2002 and rules framed thereunder.

4. Plaintiff has given the description of all the six plots in sub para No.2 of the plaint. Defendant No.1 issued an advertisement in the newspaper on 19.06.2007 for sale of immoveable properties as detailed in the headnote of the plaint which were taken into possession by defendant No.1 under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (Second) Ordinance, 2002. Plaintiff pleaded that on 15.03.2008, plaintiff and defendant No.2 submitted a joint consent to purchase the properties in the shape of six residential plots as shown in headnote of the plaint. All the six plots were previously mortgaged with defendant No.1 by previous borrowers of defendant No.1. Joint consent letter dated 15.03.2008 has been attached with the suit properties as Annexure P2. Plaintiff pleaded in para No.5 of the plaint that on receipt of consent letter, defendant No.1 issued a joint letter to the plaintiff and defendant No.2 asking for certain documents so as to finalize the further course of action. Letter dated 18.03.2011 has also been attached as Annexure P3 along with the plaint. Plaintiff further pleaded that the deal was finalized with defendant No.1 and a demand draft of Rs.8 lacs was deposited with defendant No.1. Details of demand draft viz-a-viz date and bank have been pleaded in para No.7 of the plaint and statement of account of the plaintiff has been attached as Annexure P6 with the plaint. Plaintiff also pleaded the details of payments made by defendant No.2 in para No.8 of the plaint. The amount of Rs.8 lacs deposited by the plaintiff with defendant No.1 was adjusted against the loan account No.14007436 of Bishambar Dass amounting to Rs.2,77,472/-, loan account No.14007708 of Ramesh Chander amounting to Rs.2,45,818/-, loan account No.14007709 of Pal Ram Gill amounting to Rs.2,45,818/- and loan account No.14007675 of Harish Chander amounting to Rs.30,892/-. The loan amount given by defendant No.1 has also been attached with the suit as Annexure P7. Defendant No.1 prepared six sale certificates in joint names of plaintiff and defendant No.2 in respect of aforesaid six plots and the same have been attached with the suit as Annexures P8 to P13. NOC was issued by defendant No.1 in joint names of the plaintiff and defendant No.2 acknowledging that plaintiff and defendant No.2 have paid full and final payment against purchase of six residential plots situated in Derabassi. No due certificate has also been attached with the suit as Annexure P14.

5. Plaintiff further in para No.12 of the plaint pleaded that on 10.03.2011, she came to know from reliable sources that defendant No.2 has agreed to sell the aforesaid properties to some willing

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top