IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

CR-2062-2026 Date of decision: 06.03.2026 Smt. Ashulika Sharma and another . . . . Petitioners Vs.

Janhit Sewa Charitable Trust (Regd.) 576, Sector 16A, Faridabad . . . . Respondent ****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA ****

Present: - Mr. Anurag Mor and Mr. Nitin Verma, Advocates, for the petitioners.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

The present revision petition has been filed by the defendants challenging the order dated 22.08.2024 (Annexure P4) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, whereby their application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint was dismissed, as well as the subsequent order dated 13.11.2025, whereby the review application filed by them under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC was also dismissed.

2. The respondent–plaintiff, a charitable trust, instituted a civil suit challenging the validity of a Will dated 06.10.2015 allegedly executed by Smt. Asarfi Devi and seeking declaratory and consequential reliefs. During the pendency of the suit, the defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on several grounds, inter alia, that the trust could not institute the suit in its own name, that all trustees had not been impleaded as parties, that the provisions of Section 92 CPC and Order XXXI CPC had not been complied with, that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action, and that the suit was barred by Order II Rule 2 CPC.

3. The learned trial Court, after hearing the parties and considering the pleadings, dismissed the said application by a detailed order dated 22.08.2024. The trial Court held that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only the averments contained in the plaint and the documents annexed therewith can be looked into. The Court further held that the plaint disclosed a clear cause of action, as the plaintiff had challenged the Will dated 06.10.2015 on grounds such as incapacity of the testator, fraud and undue influence. It was further observed that the questions regarding the authority of the person instituting the suit on behalf of the trust, the validity of the authority letter, and the applicability of Order II Rule 2 CPC involved mixed questions of law and fact, which could not be adjudicated at the stage of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The trial Court accordingly concluded that none of the grounds raised by the defendants justified rejection of the plaint.

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendants filed an application seeking review of the order dated 22.08.2024, contending that the Court had committed errors apparent on the face of the record and had relied upon judgments, which were not applicable to the facts of the case. The learned trial Court examined the scope of review jurisdiction under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and held that review can be entertained only when there is discovery of new and important matter, or when there is an error apparent on the face of the record. It was observed that the grounds raised by the defendants required re-examination of the merits of the case and involved a process of reasoning, which cannot be undertaken in review jurisdiction. The trial Court accordingly held that no error apparent on the face of the record had been shown and dismissed the review application vide order dated

13.11.2025.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has reiterated before this Court the same contentions, which were raised before the trial Court, particularly that the trust was not competent to institute the suit in its own name and that the provisions of Section 92 CPC and Order XXXI CPC had not been complied with. It has also been argued that the suit is barred by Order II Rule 2 CPC and therefore, the plaint ought to have been rejected.

6 Having considered the submissions made and perused the impugned orders, this Court finds no merit