IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 01.07.2025 Sarabjit Singh Sekhon …Petitioner Versus Rajwant Kaur …Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Gagandeep Singh Wasu, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)

The present revision petition assails the order dated 03.05.2025 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, vide which the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) seeking rejection of plaint (Annexure P-2), was dismissed.

2. The facts, as emanating from the revision petition are that the respondent-plaintiff Rajwant Kaur instituted a suit for declaration that the power of attorney dated 17.02.2014 alleged to have been executed by one Dilraj Singh Sekhon in favour of his son Sarabjit Singh Sekhon (the present petitioner) was invalid, illegal and non-existent firstly as it had been revoked by a fresh power of attorney dated 18.03.2015 and secondly since Dilraj Singh Sekhon had expired on 27.03.2017 as a result of which the defendant had no right to use the same in any manner. Consequential relief of permanent injunction was also prayed for. Mandatory injunction that all actions taken by the defendant based upon the said power of attorney were void ab initio was also prayed for.

3. An application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC (Annexure P-2) was filed by the present petitioner-defendant seeking rejection of plaint on various grounds viz limitation, no cause of action having arisen in favour of plaintiff, the suit not disclosing a clear right to sue etc.

4. The application for rejection of plaint was opposed. By way of the impugned order dated 03.05.2025, the said application was rejected leading to the filing of the instant revision petition.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court erred in dismissing the application for rejection of plaint. He submits that since the plaintiff had himself stated in the plaint that executant of the power of attorney had expired, no action could have been taken on the basis of the said power of attorney. He submits that a totally false and frivolous suit has been filed which deserves to be rejected on the threshold.

7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner but find the same to be devoid of merit.

8. As regards the ground of the suit being time barred, the trial Court in-fact went into the issue in detail and held that the suit was not barred by limitation. In the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court was not required to delve into the merits of the issue as it would be eventually for the trial Court to decide the same. Nothing in the plaint, however, shows that on the face of it, the suit was barred by limitation.

9. As regards the question of cause of action, a bare perusal of the plaint shows that the same would be a matter of evidence and no part of the plaint suggests that prima facie there was no cause of action to institute the suit. In the considered opinion of this Court, without leading evidence, it would not be possible to hold that no cause of action had arisen to the plaintiff.

10. That being so, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order warranting interference.

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

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(VIKRAM AGGARWAL)

JUDGE July 01, 2025

Rekha