Manpreet Gill Maini (Smt. ) vs Baldeep Kaur Siddhu

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(MP) 892

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Vishal Dhagat, J.
Manpreet Gill Maini (Smt.) & Others v. Baldeep Kaur Siddhu & Others
First Appeal No. 2385 of 2023 (Jabalpur): against the order dated 25.9.2023 passed in RCS No. 340 A/2018; Decided on 20.8.2025

Advocates Appeared:
Smt. Amrit Kaur Ruprah for appellants; Sourabh Kumar Tiwari for respondents.

Headnote:
¼1½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & èkkjk 16] 20 rFkk vkŒ 7 fuŒ 11 & {ks=h; vfèkdkfjrk & oknhx.k us foÒktu d¢ fy, tcyiqj esa okn çLrqr fd;k & ,d laifÙk ve`rlj ¼iatkc½ esa fLFkr & vU; laifÙk;k¡ tcyiqj esa fLFkr & çfroknhx.k us vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 d¢ vèkhu vkosnu çLrqr fd;k & vfèkdkfjrk ugha g¨us d¢ vkèkkj ij vkosnu eatwj fd;k x;k ,oa okn [kkfjt fd;k x;k & çfroknhx.k tcyiqj esa fuokljr & okn gsrqd rc mn~Hkwr gqvk tc foÒktu d¢ lacaèk esa ckr djus ls tcyiqj esa bUdkj fd;k x;k & ve`rlj ¼iatkc½ esa fLFkr ,d laifÙk Òh èkkjk 16 ,oa 20 dh lhek esa vkrh gS & fopkj.k U;k;ky; us vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 d¢ vèkhu vkosnu eatwj djus rFkk okn [kkfjt djus esa xyrh dh & fopkj.k U;k;ky; dk vkns'k vikLr & vfxze dk;Zokgh djus d¢ fy, ekeyk fopkj.k U;k;ky; d¨ çfrçsf"krA ¼iSjk 8 ,oa 9½
¼2½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & èkkjk 20] 16 rFkk vkŒ 7 fuŒ 11 & i{kdkj¨a dk vla;¨tu & foÒktu d¢ fy, okn & i{kdkj¨a d¢ vla;¨tu dk ç'u vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 d¢ vèkhu vkosnu esa fofuf'pr ugÈ fd;k tk ldrk & ;g i{kdkj¨a }kjk lk{; çLrqr djus d¢ i'pkr~ gh fofuf'pr fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¼iSjk 8½
¼3½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vkŒ 2 fuŒ 1 ,oa 2] vkŒ 7 fuŒ 11¼3½ rFkk èkkjk 16 ,oa 20 & foÒktu d¢ fy, okn & ,d laifÙk ifjR;ä & okni= esa laiw.kZ nkok lfEefyr ugha fd, tkus dh vkifÙk & U;k;ky; dh vfèkdkfjrk d¢ Òhrj okn ykus d¢ fy, oknhx.k d¨ nkos ds fdlh va'k dk R;tu djus d¢ fy, vkns'k 2 fu;e 1 ,oa 2 vuqefr nsrk gSA ¼iSjk 8½
(1) Civil P.C. 1908 -- Ss. 16, 20 and O. 7 R. 11 -- territorial jurisdiction -- plaintiffs filed suit for partition in Jabalpur -- one property situated in Amritsar (Punjab) -- other properties situated in Jabalpur -- defendants filed application under Order 7 rule 11 -- application allowed and suit dismissed on ground of lack of jurisdiction -- defendants live in Jabalpur -- cause of action arose when talk about partition was refused in Jabalpur -- one property situated in Amritsar (Punjab) will also fall within ambit of sections 16 and 20 -- trial Court committed error in allowing application under Order 7 rule 11 and dismissing suit -- order of trial Court set aside -- matter remanded to trial Court to proceed further. [Paras 8 & 9]
(2) Civil P.C. 1908 -- Ss. 20, 16 and O. 7 R. 11 -- non-joinder of parties -- suit for partition -- issue of non-joinder of parties cannot be decided on application under Order 7 rule 11 -- it can be decided after evidence is adduced by parties. [Para 8]
(3) Civil P.C. 1908 -- O. 2 Rr. 1 & 2, O. 7 R. 11(3) and Ss. 16 & 20 -- suit for partition -- one property abandoned -- objection that whole claim not included in plaint -- Order 2 rules 1 and 2 permit plaintiffs to relinquish any portion of claim for bringing suit within jurisdiction of Court. [Para 8]

ORDER

1. Appellants have filed this appeal under section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging order dated 25.9.2023 passed by District judge (28th), Jabalpur in RCS No.340A/2018.

2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants are plaintiffs and respondents were defendants before trial Court. Appellants and respondents are siblings and son's-daughter's of Manmohan Singh Gill. He met with a road accident while returning from Hyderabad to Jabalpur on 6.5.2017 and thereafter he died. Father of Late Manmohan Singh Gill namely Late Malkiyat Singh has purchased properties. After his death properties passed over to Late Manmohan Singh Gill. Sometime after death of Late Manmohan Singh Gill dispute arose between brothers and sisters regarding partitioning of property. Appellants filed Civil Suit making a prayer that appellants be granted 1/4th part of the properties mentioned in Para-6 of plaint. At the stage of hearing of case, an application was moved by respondents under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. Reply to application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC was filed and trial Court after detailed hearing of parties allowed the application and dismissed the suit vide order dated 25.9.2023. Being aggrieved by aforesaid order, appellants preferred First Appeal before this Court.

3. Counsel appearing for appellants submitted that trial Court committed an error of law in dismissing the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. It is submitted that appellants being plaintiffs had abandoned their claim over property mentioned in Para - 6(e) of plaint, which is situated in Punjab and there was no occasion for learned trial Court to dismiss the civil suit on ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. It is submitted that every suit shall include whole of the claim which plaintiff is entitled to make, but plaintiff may relinquish any portion of claim and due to which suit cannot be dismissed. It was too early for trial Court to decide on non-joinder of parties. As per averments made in the plaint properties from Late Malkiyat Singh devolve upon Late Manmohan Singh Gill and he was the owner of properties in question. Ground raised by respondents in defence that legal heirs of Late Malkiyat Singh were not made party and there is non-joinder cannot be taken into consideration while deciding application under Order 7 rule 11 of CPC. Application under Order 7 rule 11 of CPC is filed at belated stage and two witnesses were examined. Application at such belated stage is not to be entertained. In view of aforesaid submission counsel appearing for appellant made a prayer for setting aside impugned order dated 25.9.2023 and remand the matter back to trial Court for further proceeding in Civil Suit.

4. Counsel appearing for respondents supported the order passed by trial Court. It is submitted that property mentioned in Para - 6(e) of plaint is situated in village Ramana Chak, Tehsil Baba Bakala, District Amritsar (Punjab), which is beyond territorial jurisdiction of trial Court and same is hit by Order 7 rule 1 (f) of CPC. Particulars of properties have not been mentioned. Plaintiffs are duty bound to give full and complete particulars of properties under Order 7 rule 3 of CPC. It is also submitted that map has not been annexed to the plaint and therefore, suit is not maintainable and hit by Order 7 rule 3 of CPC. Trial Court has rightly decided the issue of non-joinder as other legal heirs of Late Malkiyat Singh were not made party in the case. It is also submitted that plaintiffs pleaded that deceased was having ornaments, cloths and cash regarding which no partition has been claimed in the suit. In absence of including all movable or immovable assets of deceased, relief of partition is not maintainable and hit by Order 7 rule 1 (h) of CPC. Trial Court has rightly considered the issues and dismissed the suit. Prayer is made for dismissal of First Appeal.

5. Heard counsel for the parties.

6. Trial Court held that application under Order 7 rule 11 of CPC can be file

Click Here to Read the rest of this document