Back
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
CR No. 2301 of 2017(O&M)
Decided On : 21-05-2019
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - Jurisdiction, Cause of Action, and Limitation - Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (Second) Ordinance, 2002 - Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, mandatory injunction, partition, and permanent injunction against defendant No.1, seeking ownership and possession of properties. Defendant No.1 acquired rights under the Securitization Ordinance. Plaintiff alleged joint purchase of properties with defendant No.2, issuance of sale certificates, and subsequent dispute. Defendant No.2 filed a consumer complaint, which was allowed and later set aside in appeals. Plaintiff filed the present suit in Chandigarh, while defendant No.2 filed a suit in Derabassi. Defendant No.2 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the grounds of jurisdiction, cause of action, limitation, and pending litigation at Derabassi. The court held that the issues raised by the plaintiff gave rise to triable issues, and the plea under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC should be exercised with caution. The court dismissed the revision petition, emphasizing that no final expression on the merits of the case was made, and the trial court should proceed with the suit on merits.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit against defendant No.1 for ownership and possession of properties, alleging joint purchase with defendant No.2, issuance of sale certificates, and subsequent dispute. Defendant No.2 filed a consumer complaint, which was allowed and later set aside in appeals. Plaintiff filed the present suit in Chandigarh, while defendant No.2 filed a suit in Derabassi.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the issues raised by the plaintiff gave rise to triable issues, and the plea under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC should be exercised with caution. The court dismissed the revision petition, emphasizing that no final expression on the merits of the case was made, and the trial court should proceed with the suit on merits.
Issues: The issues raised in the case included jurisdiction, cause of action, limitation, and pending litigation at Derabassi.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plea under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC should be exercised with caution, and the issues raised by the plaintiff gave rise to triable issues. The court emphasized that no final expression on the merits of the case was made, and the trial court should proceed with the suit on merits.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition, emphasizing that no final expression on the merits of the case was made, and the trial court should proceed with the suit on merits.
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 head note 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 there under.
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 head note 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 head note 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 wil
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
