IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

257 Civil Revision No.7667 of 2023 (O & M)

Date of decision :-17.09.2025 Jatinder Singh Gill …..Petitioner Versus Nimrat Kaur Mansahia and others …..Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

NIDHI GUPTA J.

The present revision petition has been filed by the defendant No.1 seeking setting aside of the order dated 14.7.2023 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Sangrur whereby the application filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, has been dismissed.

It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in dismissing the application of the petitioner, the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the Civil Suit was barred by limitation. Moreover, plaintiff/respondent has filed suit for declaration that the sale deeds in respect of the suit land are void. Therefore, the plaintiff was required to affix ad valorem Court fee; and suit of the plaintiff could not have been entertained till the court fee was affixed.

Ld. Counsel submits that the predecessors-in-interests of the present plaintiffs/respondents No.1 to 3 herein had executed the impugned sale deeds. The said sale deeds were never challenged by the executants during their lifetime. After the deaths of the executants of the sale deeds on 07.2.2016 and 25.10.2017, present suit was preferred by the plaintiffs on 13.6.2019 for declaration, possession and permanent injunction in respect of the suit land. Challenge was laid to the sale deeds on the grounds of fraud, without consideration, and without possession on the basis of natural succession; and registered Wills dated 16.10.2015 and 3.3.2016 allegedly executed by executants Darshan Kaur @ Gurdarshan Kaur and Surinder Singh respectively in favour of the plaintiff No.3. It is submitted that accordingly the suit was under valued for Court fee and jurisdiction in view of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fee Act and for want of any cause of action in favour of the plaintiffs. However, without appreciating the above facts, the application of the petitioner has been dismissed. In support, learned counsel relies upon the judgment of this Court in Boda Ram vs. Beermati Devi and others 2014 (12) RCR (Civil) 1057 Law Finder Doc Id # 493282. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside.

No other argument has been advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file.

Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/respondents had filed a suit dated 13.6.2019 (Annexure P-1) for declaration, possession and permanent injunction. The petitioner/defendant No.1 had filed an application dated NIL (Annexure P-2) for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the grounds that suit is barred by limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act; and suit is under valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction in view of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fee Act. The plaintiff had filed the reply dated 24.9.2019 (Annexure P-3) to the said application of the petitioner. The learned trial Court vide the impugned order dated 14.7.2023 (Annexure P-4) has dismissed the application of the petitioner.

I find no infirmity in the impugned order as the limitation is a mixed question of facts and law. It is the clear mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in numerous judgments that in adjudicating upon an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC only the averments made in the plaint can be considered; and even the written statement to the plaint cannot be adverted to. I find support in my view from judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Eldeco Housing and Industries Ltd. Vs. Ashok Vidyarthi & Others” (SC) : Law Finder Doc ID # 2406865, wherein it has been held that no evidence or merits of the controversy can be examined at the stage of deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC; and that only the