IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-1215-2026 Date of decision: 06.02.2026 Mahabir and others ...Pe(cid:28)(cid:28)oners Versus Sunil Kumar and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Suryakant Gautam, Advocate for the pe(cid:28)(cid:28)oners.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

The pe(cid:28)(cid:28)oners are some of the defendants in Civil Suit No.106 of 2023 (cid:28)tled Sunil Kumar Vs. Mahabir and others, pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak. They have approached this Court aggrieved by the order dated 03.11.2025, whereby their applica(cid:28)on filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejec(cid:28)on of the plaint has been dismissed.

2. A perusal of the plaint shows that the plain(cid:28)ff ins(cid:28)tuted the suit seeking a decree of permanent and mandatory injunc(cid:28)on by asser(cid:28)ng that he is a resident of the locality and that defendants No.1 to 8, who are his neighbours, have encroached upon a public street, thereby obstruc(cid:28)ng its use. It is further pleaded that repeated representa(cid:28)ons were made to the Municipal Corpora(cid:28)on, Rohtak, but since no ac(cid:28)on was taken, the plain(cid:28)ff was constrained to approach the Civil Court.

3. The defendants sought rejec(cid:28)on of the plaint on the grounds that no cause of ac(cid:28)on was disclosed; that proper court fee had not been affixed; that the suit was barred under Sec(cid:28)on 91 CPC as well as under Sec(cid:28)on 15 of the Public Premises (Evic(cid:28)on of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971; that it was barred for want of no(cid:28)ce under Sec(cid:28)on 80 CPC and Sec(cid:28)on 389 of the Haryana Municipal Act; and that the suit was also barred by limita(cid:28)on.

4. The learned trial Court, however, dismissed the said applica(cid:28)on vide the impugned order by observing that along with the suit, the plain(cid:28)ff had filed an applica(cid:28)on under Sec(cid:28)on 80(1) CPC seeking exemp(cid:28)on from issuance of no(cid:28)ce, and no(cid:28)ce of that applica(cid:28)on had been issued to the defendants. The trial Court further observed that the defendants had failed to specify in what manner the court fee was deficient, and that the other objec(cid:28)ons raised were mixed ques(cid:28)ons of law and fact, which could be decided only aDer par(cid:28)es lead their respec(cid:28)ve evidence. It was also no(cid:28)ced that from a plain reading of the plaint, a prima facie cause of ac(cid:28)on was clearly disclosed.

5. Assailing the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the pe(cid:28)(cid:28)oners has reiterated the same grounds, which were urged before the trial Court and has contended that the plaint deserved rejec(cid:28)on at the threshold.

6. This Court does not find any merit in the said conten(cid:28)on.

7. The scope of an applica(cid:28)on under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is limited. At that stage, the Court is required to examine only the averments made in the plaint, without adver(cid:28)ng to the defence taken by the defendants, to ascertain whether the plaint discloses a cause of ac(cid:28)on or is barred by any law on the face of it. Rejec(cid:28)on of a plaint is a dras(cid:28)c power and can be exercised only when the case squarely falls within the parameters laid down under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. If adjudica(cid:28)on of an objec(cid:28)on requires apprecia(cid:28)on of evidence or determina(cid:28)on of disputed facts, the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold.

8. In the present case, the plain(cid:28)ff has specifically pleaded that he is a neighbour of the defendants and that the defendants have encroached upon a public street, thereby affec(cid:28)ng his right of access and enjoyment. Such pleadings, on their face, disclose a clear cause of ac(cid:28)on. Whether any encroachment has actually been made, whether the land in ques(cid:28)on is a public street, and whether the plain(cid:28)ff has suffered legal injury are maFers which can be dec