##PAGE1##

126

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CR-2590-2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 03.02.2026

Chirag Malik and Another ... Petitioners

Versus

Satpal and Another ... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

Present : Mr. Jaskaran Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

1. Present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 14.01.2025 dismissing

the application filed by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 (petitioners herein) under

Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-

respondent No.1 herein filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining

the defendants i.e. petitioners and proforma respondent No.2 from interfering

in his peaceful possession and from dispossessing him from the plot in

question. It was averred in the plaint that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 after

purchasing the plot had started raising construction on it and had raised the

construction upto the DPC level. Thereafter, defendant Nos.1 and 2

(petitioners herein), 15 days prior to the filing of the suit, came to the spot and

threatened to dismantle the DPC and falsely claimed their right over the said

plot on the basis of false, frivolous and forged documents. An application was

JITENDER KUMAR

2026.02.04 10:10

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

CR-2590-2025 -2-

filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 (petitioners herein) for rejection of the plaint

averring therein that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 had claimed to have

purchased the said plot vide agreement to sell dated 28.10.2024 from a

registered owner through Satnam Singh, who claimed to be the power of

attorney of defendant No.3 (respondent No.2 herein) and the power of

attorney was registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Himachal Pradesh,

which created a serious doubt and suspicion regarding its authenticity. It was

further the ground taken that the document was unregistered and plaintiff-

respondent No.1 was claiming possession on the basis of an unregistered

document. Various other grounds were also raised. Reply was filed to the said

application. Vide the impugned order the application has been dismissed.

Hence, the present revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that para 6 of

the plaint itself reveals that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 was aware that there

is a document of sale in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2 (petitioners herein)

and therefore no ground is made out to entertain the suit.

4. Heard.

5. In the present case the suit is for simpliciter permanent

injunction. Only the possession of plaintiff-respondent No.1 needs to be seen.

The plaintiff-respondent No.1 has categorically stated that he is in possession

of the suit property and defendant Nos.1 and 2 (petitioners herein) are trying

to interfere in his possession. The argument of learned counsel for the

petitioners that since plaintiff-respondent No.1 seems to be aware of the sale

deed in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2 (petitioners herein) therefore the suit

ought to have been dismissed, deserves to be rejected. It is trite that at the time

of contesting the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC only the contents

JITENDER KUMAR

2026.02.04 10:10

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

CR-2590-2025 -3-

of the plaint are to be seen and not those of the application under Order VII

Rule 11 CPC or any other pleadings.

6. In the case of Chhotanben & Anr. vs Kiritbhai

Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar & Ors. [2018 (5) RCR (Civil) 163] the Hon’ble

Supreme Court held as under :

“12. What is relevant for answering the matter in

issue in the context of the application under Order VII

Rule 11(d), is to examine the averments in the plaint. The

plaint is required to be read as a whole. The defence

available to the defendants or the plea taken by them in

the written statement or any application filed by them