IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 18.02.2026 Suman @ Suman Punia … Petitioner Versus Chameli Devi … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Navmohit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Pawan Kumar Jangra, Advocate, and Mr. Wazir Singh, Advocate, for the respondent.

***

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL)

The instant revision petition, preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails the order dated 31.05.2019 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Hisar, vide which the application instituted by the petitioner/defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) for rejection of plaint was dismissed.

2. A suit (Annexure P-2) was instituted by the respondent/plaintiff (Chameli Devi) against the petitioner/defendant (Suman) for symbolic possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 21.10.2011, executed qua a plot measuring 97 sq. yards (fully described in the plaint), situated at Village Satrod Khurd, Tehsil and District Hisar.

3. An application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is stated to have been moved by the petitioner/defendant seeking rejection of the plaint on the grounds of non-fixation of ad valorem court fee and limitation. It was stated that ad valorem court fee had not been affixed and further, since the agreement to sell was stated to have been executed on 21.10.2011 and the defendant had refused to execute the sale deed on 08.06.2012, the suit filed on 30.04.2019 was barred by limitation and the plaint, therefore, deserved to be rejected.

4. The said application was opposed. However, the ad valorem court fee was affixed. Vide the impugned order, the trial Court held that limitation was a mixed question of law and facts and, therefore, the plaint could not be rejected on the said ground. Aggrieved by the same, the instant revision petition has been preferred.

5. Learned counsel for the parties were heard.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the trial Court gravely erred in dismissing the application for rejection of plaint. While referring to the plaint, he submits that the agreement to sell was allegedly executed on 21.10.2011. He refers to paragraph 5 of the plaint and submits that even as per the case of the respondent/plaintiff, the petitioner/defendant had refused to execute the sale deed on 8.06.2012. He further submits that under the circumstances, the suit was clearly barred by limitation and by making an imaginary cause of action, the limitation could not be extended. Learned counsel submits that under the circumstances, the plaint deserves to be rejected at the threshold. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decisions rendered by this Court in Narender Kumar Nangia v. Harjinder Pal Singh, 2018 SCC Online SC 1537; Estate Officer, PUDA now GMADA v. Satwant Kaur and others (CR-6288-2011, decided on 14.07.2014); and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narne Rama Murthy v. Ravula Somasundaram & Ors., 2005(6) SCC 614.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order and that limitation is always a mixed question of law and facts. While referring to paragraphs 7, 8 & 12 of the plaint, learned counsel submits that in view of the averments made in the said paragraphs, the suit cannot be said to be barred by limitation. Even otherwise, the said issue ought to be adjudicated during the course of the trial. He also submits that where there are a number of reliefs prayed for, the plaint cannot be rejected even if one relief is made out. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in P. Kumarakurubaran v. P. Narayanan & Ors., 2025 SCC Online SC 975; Kulabandhu Ram Adarsh Sharma v. Nam Estates Private Limited and Anr., [Civil Appeal No.11413 of 2025, de