IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

CR-5832-2025 (O&M)

Decided on :- 27.08.2025 Nidhi Singla and Another ....Petitioners VERSUS Girish Anmol Sood and Others ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Aayush Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU J.

1. Present civil revision petition has been directed against the order dated 21.05.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, whereby an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by the petitioners/defendants No. 5 and 6 for rejection of the plaint was dismissed.

Brief Facts

2. The plaintiff, Girish Anmol Sood, instituted a suit seeking cancellation of sale deed dated 17.07.2023 executed by his father, Anmol Sood (defendant No.1) in favour of defendant No.2, which was subsequently followed by further transfers in favour of the present petitioners/defendant Nos.5 and 6.

3. The plaintiff assailed the sale deed dated 17.07.2023 as being illegal on the ground that the same was executed during the pendency of an earlier suit filed by him seeking declaration of ownership and permanent injunction in respect of the same property, which is still sub judice.

4. The petitioners/defendants No.5 and 6 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC contending that the present suit is without any cause of action and liable to be rejected. It was submitted that ownership of the suit property has not yet been adjudicated in the earlier suit and, therefore, the present challenge to the subsequent transfer is premature. It was further submitted that since the impugned sale deed was executed during pendency of the earlier suit, the principle of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short, ‘the Act’) already applies, and consequently, the fresh suit is barred in law and liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

5. In reply, the respondent/plaintiff submitted that the application was not maintainable. It was pleaded that the plaint discloses a clear and independent cause of action, namely challenge to the legality of a specific transfer by way of sale deed dated 17.07.2023, which is a subsequent event not covered by the earlier suit. Whether the plaintiff ultimately succeeds or not is a matter of trial, but at this stage, the plaint cannot be rejected. The plea of lis pendens is not one of the grounds available under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and can be raised in the written statement to be adjudicated on merits.

Findings of the Trial Court

6. The learned trial Court, after hearing both sides, observed that a plaint can be rejected only on the grounds specifically mentioned under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The main contention of the defendants was that the suit is barred by the doctrine of lis pendens since ownership is sub judice in the earlier suit and the impugned transfer was made pendente lite. However, the Court held that being hit by lis pendens is not one of the enumerated grounds under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 7. It was further held that whether the doctrine of lis pendens applies or not can be considered at the stage of trial upon framing of issues and leading of evidence. The plaint, on its face, discloses a cause of action to challenge a particular transfer, and hence cannot be rejected at the threshold. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

Findings

8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and carefully gone through the record.

9. The facts are not much in dispute. The plaintiff earlier filed a suit seeking declaration of ownership and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. During pendency of that suit, defendant No.1 executed sale deed dated 17 July 2023 in favour of defendant No.2, which was followed by further transfers to defendant Nos.5 and 6. The present suit has been filed specifically challenging that subsequent transfer.

10. The only question before this Court is whether the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on