IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

258 CR-6083-2024(O&M)

Date of decision: 23.02.2026 Vikram Saini ...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Shilpa & Others ...Respondent(s)

***

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: Mr. Ishmeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Revision Petition has been filed by the defendant No.1 seeking setting aside of the order dated 05.09.2024 (Annexure P3) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhri, whereby application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 had filed a Civil Suit No.1608 dated 05.07.2024 (Annexure P1) for permanent injunction against the petitioner/defendant No.1 and the defendants No.2 and 3/pro-forma respondents No.2 and 3 herein. In the said suit, the defendants had filed application dated 17.07.2024 (Annexure P2) under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The plaintiff had filed reply dated 18.07.2024 to the said application. Vide impugned order dated 05.09.2024 (Annexure P3), application of the defendants has been dismissed.

3. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court was in error in dismissing the application as it had failed to appreciate that it was clear from the averments made in the plaint that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property. Therefore, simplicitor suit for permanent injunction, was not maintainable. The remedy available to the plaintiff is to seek declaration as well as possession; and thereby affix ad valorem Court fee. Thus, the impugned order is on the face of it illegal and unsustainable. Accordingly, setting aside of the impugned order is prayed for.

4. No other argument is made on behalf of the petitioner.

5. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in great detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. 6. A perusal of the plaint (Annexure P1) shows that plaintiff has sought decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in actual, physical and peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the land measuring 2K-12.3M; and further restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land forcibly, and illegally themselves or through their agent, servant and representatives or in any manner whatsoever.

7. It is the pleaded case of the plaintiff that vide Sale Deed No.204 dated 28.04.2023 and Sale Deed No.224 dated 03.05.2023 and Sale Deed No.225 dated 03.05.2023, the defendants had sold the suit property to the plaintiff and the father-in-law of the plaintiff. As per the plaint, the sale deed no. 204 was executed in favour of the plaintiff, and defendant no. 1 has handed over the actual and physical possession of the suit land to the plaintiff. Since 28.04.2023, the plaintiff is cultivating her land through her husband and father-in-law without any interruption. Thus, plaintiff has clearly pleaded that she is in possession of the suit land. Even no prayer for grant of possession has been made in the plaint.

8. A perusal of the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC (Annexure P2) shows that a contrary averment has been made by the defendants that plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property. However, only a bald statement to this effect has been made; without mentioning any attendance circumstances, as to how defendant claims to be in possession. It is also to be noted that nothing has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that petitioner has filed written statement to the suit. Therefore, in the absence of written statement, the question asked to whether or not plaintiff is in possession of the suit property or not is a matter of trial and can be ascertained only upon leading of evidence by the parties. In the plaint, the plaintiff has clearly stated that she is in possession of the suit property. As such, this question can be