IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:04.02.2026 Noordin alias Nooruddin Noor ...Petitioner Versus Aaisha and Others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Yashvardhan Goyal, Advocate with Mr. Amyia Malhotra, Advocate for petitioner.

***

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

Petitioner-defendant No.4 is aggrieved by impugned order dated

06.03.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nuh, Haryana, whereby application under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) preferred by petitioner-defendant No.4 for rejection of plaint was dismissed.

2. Petitioner-defendant No.4 has sought rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that since plaintiff No.4 was impleaded through his wife namely Smt. Sahina, claiming him to be of unsound mind, which is a false plea taken up by plaintiff No.4 in order to avoid his liability being one of the attesting witnesses to the transfer deed in favour of defendant No.4, therefore, suit is liable to be rejected. In other words, it is the case of petitioner-defendant No.4 that plaintiff No.4 is faking to be of unsound mind, whereas he is a person with fit state of mind, therefore, suit is not maintainable. The second argument raised on behalf of petitioner-defendant No.4 is that since wife of plaintiff No.4 was never appointed by Court as guardian of plaintiff No.4, therefore, suit is barred by law and deserves to be rejected.

3. Learned Court of first instance after considering provisions of Order XXXII Rule 15 of CPC concluded that status of plaintiff No.4 can be inquired about if defendant No.4 has any objection, however, this by itself is not sufficient to reject plaint under Order VII Rule 7 of CPC.

4. Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC can only be made on the grounds stated therein. Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is reproduced for ready reference:-

"11. Rejection of plaint.— The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:—

(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;

(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;

[(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;

(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule]

[Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp- paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.]"

5. Order VII Rule 11, therefore, lays down six grounds for which plaint can be rejected. Further, for the purposes of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11, only plaint preferred by plaintiff can be taken in consideration to conclude existence of any ground so mentioned under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Written statement and defence taken by defendant/applicant cannot be taken in consideration.

6. The objection in present case upon which application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is preferred is that plaintiff No.4 is suing through his wife without there being any unsoundness of mind and without appointment of his wife as next friend by the Court. The question would be whether the ground taken by petitioner-defendant No.4 would be covered by scope of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

7. On the other hand, reading of plaint goes to show that