IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 20.02.2025 Mohan Lal ….Petitioner Versus Richa Rani and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Vikram Singh Narwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)

The present revision petition is directed against the order dated

24.05.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhri vide which the application filed by the petitioner- defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) for rejection of plaint was dismissed.

2. The facts, as emanating from the revision petition, are that a suit for permanent injunction was filed by respondent No.1-Richa Rani against the petitioner (Mohan Lal) and proforma respondent No.2-Vikas @ Rinku and respondent No.3-Parveen, restraining them from alienating, selling, transferring or creating any right or encumbrance with respect to land (fully described in the plaint) situated within the Revenue Estate of Village Gadhauli, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. It was the case of the plaintiff that defendant No.1 was her father whereas defendant Nos.2 and 3 were her brother and sister-in-law (brother’s wife) the suit land was Joint Hindu Ancestral Property and the parties were members of a Joint Hindu Family. It was averred that the suit land was recorded in the name of defendant No.1 (Mohan Lal) being Karta. He had started consuming liquor and in collusion with the defendants, was bent upon to alienate the suit land.

Under the circumstances, the suit was filed.

3. During the pendency of the suit, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC (Annexure P-1) was filed. It was averred that since the suit land was not Joint Hindu Ancestral Property, the suit for permanent injunction was not maintainable and the plaintiff had no cause of action.

4. The application was opposed by way of a reply (Annexure P-4). By way of the impugned order, the application was dismissed. Against the impugned order, initially an appeal (Annexure P-5) was filed in the Court of learned District Judge, Yamuna Nagar which was ultimately withdrawn on 30.01.2025 (Annexure P-6) and, thereafter, the present revision petition was filed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the suit land was not ancestral property but was the self acquired property of defendant No.1, the suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable.

7. The argument put-forth by learned counsel for the petitioner is completely devoid of merit for, it is the categoric case of the plaintiff that the suit land is ancestral property and that the parties to the lis are members of a Joint Hindu Family. As to whether the suit land is ancestral property or not shall be determined by leading evidence and a suit cannot be thrown out at the threshold only on the basis of the stand taken by the petitioner and that too in the written statement or in the application for rejection of plaint. It is settled law that for the purpose of decision of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only the contents of the plaint have to be seen.

8. The trial Court duly considered the said facts and rightly rejected the application. I do not find any error in the said order warranting interference.

In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any merit in the instant revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.

(VIKRAM AGGARWAL)

JUDGE

20.02.2025

Rekha