The main legal point established in the judgment is that a party must have locus standi and a valid cause of action to challenge a decree, and mere formal pleading of fraud without any locus standi does not confer a cause of action.

JUDGMENT

Rajbir Sehrawat, J. (Oral) - This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 01.10.2021 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dera Bassi (for short, the trial Court), vide which the application filed by the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 and 2 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was dismissed.

2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the application filed by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has wrongly been rejected by the trial Court. It is not even in dispute that the judgment and decree which are under challenge in the suit are dated 20.05.1986. The property, even as per the pleadings in the plaint are referred as ancestral/coparcenary property. At the time of the passing of the above said decree, respondent No.1/plaintiff was not having any locus standi qua the said property. She being a daughter got a right to be coparcener only w.e.f. 25.12.2004 as per the amendment in the Act.

3. However, as on that date, there was no property in any coparcenary as such. Hence, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that on the date when the present suit is filed, the respondent No.1/plaintiff cannot claim any right qua the property in question. Likewise, on the date when the impugned decree was passed by the Court, she was not having any other right to claim anything in the property. Hence, by any means, the plaintiff is not even having any actionable claim or any locus standi to file the plaint challenging the decree. Hence, she cannot be granted any relief. The suit in a vexatious exercise. The counsel has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in Rajendra Bajoria and others Vs. Hemant Kumar Jalan and others, Civil Appeal Nos.5819-5822 of 2021 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos.2779-2782 of 2019), decided on 21.09.2021, to contend that it is not the form of the pleadings, rather it is the content which is to be read in a meaningful manner, so as to find out whether there exists a real cause of action or the same is only illusionary created through clever drafting. The counsel has further submitted that the emphasis of law laid down by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court is to see whether the plaintiff can be granted any relief as such or not. Hence, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that since the plaintiff is not having any right which can be claimed by her to have been violated by the decree as such, hence, she is not having a cause of action. Mere formal pleading qua the fraud, without any locus standi in the matter would not confer any cause of action upon the plaintiff/respondent No.1.

4. On the other hand, the counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that the plaintiff has duly pleaded in the plaint that the decree dated 20.05.1986 was based upon fraud and collusion. The fact whether there is any collusion or fraud or not, can be determined only after the trial. If the decree is declared to be nullity on proof of the fraud, then the property restores to its coparcenary status and hence, now respondent No.1 would be having a right being a coparcener. The counsel for respondent No.1 has relied upon the judgment of this Court rendered in Brijeshwar Swaroop and others Vs. Adish Aggarwal and others, 2017 (4) RCR (Civil) 888.

5. Having heard the counsel for the parties and having gone through the case file, this Court finds substance in the argument of the counsel for the petitioners. Undisputedly, the decree in question is of dated 20.05.1986. Under the decree, all the then existing coparceners had got their shares as per their mutual understanding. Hence, there was a complete severance of status of the coparcenary as such. Therefore, after the date of passing of the decree, there cannot be any coparcenary in which the respondent/plaintiff could claim to join as co-sharer. As on the date when the decree was passed, the respondent/plaintiff was not having any interest in the property, not being