JUDGMENT :

Alka Sarin, J. (Oral)

The present revision petition has been preferred by the defendant-petitioners challenging the order dated 04.08.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Malerkotla whereby the application filed by them under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 was dismissed.

2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant-petitioners from dispossessing and interfering in the peaceful possession, use and enjoyment of the plaintiff-respondent over the shop bearing Municipal No.B-16/605 measuring 11.5/6 square yards as detailed in the plaint. The defendant-petitioners herein filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint averring therein that earlier a petition for eviction had been filed against one Rakesh Kumar and in the said eviction petition Rakesh Kumar was directed to hand over vacant possession of the shop in dispute to the present defendant-petitioners. Thereafter, the present plaintiff-respondent, namely, Ashok Kumar had filed objections which were allowed and an appeal against the said order is pending adjudication before the Appellate Court. Hence, rejection of the plaint was sought on the ground that the suit was barred under Order 21 Rule 101 CPC. Vide the impugned order the said application was dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners would contend that since the execution arising out of the eviction petition was pending in which the present plaintiff-respondent had filed an objection petition and the matter was sub-judice, the present suit was barred. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgments of this Court in Jeet Singh & Ors. V/s Mohan Singh & Ors. [1990 (2) PLR 466] and Jaswant Singh & Anr. V/s Kuldip Raj & Ors. [2011 (2) PLR 368] to contend that all relevant questions regarding tittle are to be decided by the Executing Court concerned.

4. Heard.

5. It is trite that while deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC only the contents of the plaint and the documents, if any, appended with the plaint, are to be seen. Neither the contents of the written statement, if any filed, nor the contents of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be seen.

6. In case of Chhotanben & Anr. vs. Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar & Ors. [2018 (5) RCR (Civil) 163] the Supreme Court held as under :

7. From a bare perusal of the plaint, which has been appended with the present petition as Annexure P-4, it cannot be said that the same is barred by law.

8. The judgments relied upon by the counsel for the defendant-petitioners would be of no avail as the same pertains to Order 21 Rules 97, 98, 99 and 100 CPC.

9. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality and infirmity in the order passed by the learned Trial Court. The present revision petition, being devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.