317 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-5757-2022 Date of decision: 16.02.2026 Gurjit Singh ...Petitioner Versus Paramjit Kaur and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rakeshinder Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

1. This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 09.09.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala, vide which the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:-

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed civil suit No.2085 of 2020 and a perusal of the plaint would show that plaintiff No.2 has not signed the same. It is further submitted that as per his instructions, even plaintiff No.1-Paramjit Kaur has not signed the same, rather it is the signature of one Radhey Sham Goyal which is appearing at the place where the name of Paramjit Kaur is mentioned in the plaint. It is thus, submitted that neither of the two plaintiffs have signed the plaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred to the affidavit which is stated to be filed along with the plaint and has highlighted the fact that neither of the two plaintiffs have filed the said affidavit and said Radhey Sham Goyal is stated to have filed the affidavit, who has alleged himself to be the attorney of plaintiff No.2. It is argued that the said attorney is not on record and there are no averments made in the plaint to the effect that the same has been filed through attorney nor any mention of the same has been made in the headnote. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the same, the petitioner had moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint in which it was specifically averred that no copy of the power of attorney had been annexed with the plaint.

3. It is argued that a perusal of the impugned order dated 09.09.2022 would show that it had been observed that the power of attorney had not been placed on record but it has been stated that the same is a matter of evidence. It is further submitted that in the impugned order dated 09.09.2022, the second reason given for rejection of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was to the effect that the petitioner-defendant No.1 had been proceeded against ex parte. It is submitted that a perusal of the order dated 12.05.2022 (Annexure P-6)

would show that the said ex parte proceedings have already been set aside against the petitioner/defendant No.1 and thus, the said reasoning is perverse. It is argued that the impugned order dated 09.09.2022 is against law and deserves to be set aside.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NOS.1 and 2:-

4. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2, on the other hand, has submitted that even in case the power of attorney and GPA is not filed along with the plaint and is not on record, then also, the plaint of respondent Nos.1 and 2 should not be rejected summarily and opportunity should be given to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to make good the deficiency. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Uday Shankar Triyar Vs. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh and another, reported as 2006(1) SCC 75. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 has further submitted that as per his instructions and as per the perusal of affidavit dated 08.09.2022, power of attorney is already on record.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:-

5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that power of attorney which was allegedly in favour of Radhey Sham Goyal who had signed on behalf of plaintiff