IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

-.-

CR-9558-2025 (O&M)

Decided on :- 12.01.2026

Shalu Gupta ....Petitioner

VERSUS

Falak Saini(Minor) through Rajiv Saini and Another ....Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU

Present: Mr. Ajay Ghangas, Advocate for the petitioner.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU J.

1. The present civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the order dated 21.08.2025 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Bahadurgarh, whereby the application moved by the present revision petitioner

under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the rent petition was dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, the eviction petition was originally filed by Raj Kumar Saini and his minor daughter Falak Saini, through Raj Kumar Saini, seeking eviction of the present revision petitioner on the ground of non-payment of rent. During the pendency of the eviction proceedings, Raj Kumar Saini expired on 15.05.2024. At that stage, Falak Saini, who was petitioner No.2, was a minor and was being represented through Raj Kumar Saini. On account of the death of Raj Kumar Saini, the present revision petitioner moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC contending that the eviction petition had become not maintainable, as petitioner No.2 Falak Saini was not being represented by any natural or lawful guardian and, therefore, the petition was liable to be rejected as having been filed and continued by an incompetent person. During the pendency of the said

application, proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act culminated in appointment of Rajiv Saini as guardian of the minor Falak Saini vide order dated

29.11.2024, and thereafter the eviction proceedings continued.

3. Since short controversy is involved in the present petition, no notice is required to be issued to the respondents.

4. The core controversy which arises for consideration before this Court is whether the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was required to be examined with reference to the date on which it was filed, or whether subsequent appointment of a guardian rendered the said application infructuous and non- maintainable. It is a settled principle of law that while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court is required to confine itself to the averments contained in the plaint or petition and to examine whether, on the date of its presentation, it disclosed a cause of action and was maintainable in law. The power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is not meant to be exercised on the basis of subsequent events, unless such events completely extinguish the cause of action or render the proceedings inherently void.

5. In the present case, the eviction petition was originally filed by a competent person, namely Raj Kumar Saini, both in his own right and on behalf of his minor daughter Falak Saini. The subsequent death of Raj Kumar Saini did not render the original institution of the eviction petition void or non est. At best, it resulted in a procedural irregularity regarding representation of the minor petitioner, which was curable in nature. The appointment of a lawful guardian during the pendency of the proceedings related back to cure the defect of representation and did not affect the maintainability of the eviction petition at its inception. The application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, therefore, could not succeed merely on the ground that for a limited period the minor petitioner was not represented by a guardian, particularly when such defect stood rectified by an order of a competent court.

6. The learned Rent Controller has correctly appreciated the legal position and rightly held that the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC had lost its efficacy after the appointment of a guardian and that the eviction petition could not be rejected on a hyper-technical ground, especially when no inherent lack of jurisdiction or absence of cause of action was made out. The impugned order does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or juri