IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

201 CR-3930-2016 Date of decision: 17.09.2025 Nazam Singh ....Petitioner Versus Baldev Singh ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: Mr. Navjot Singh, Advocate for Ms. Dhivya, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rahul Vijay Singh Chugh, Advocate with Mr. Lokesh Singh, Advocate for the respondent.

****

NIDHI GUPTA, J (ORAL)

1. Present revision petition has been filed by defendant against the order dated 09.02.2016 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mansa, whereby application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. has been disposed of, taking into account the fact that petitioner had not yet filed written statement in the suit and that the objection under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC could be taken by the petitioner in his written statement.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order by submitting that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the plaintiff- respondent has cleverly drafted the suit Annexure P-2 in a manner that no prayer for possession has been made; whereas in actual, the plaintiff is also seeking possession of the suit property. It is submitted that although in the headnote of the suit the plaintiff has claimed himself to be owner in possession of the suit land, however, in para 3 of the plaint it has been admitted by the plaintiff that pursuant to the Exchange Deed entered into between the parties in respect of 4 Kanals of land and house, plaintiff had given possession of suit land to the defendant. It is submitted that accordingly in fact, the plaintiff was seeking possession of the suit land; and was therefore liable to pay ad valorem court fee thereupon. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the plaintiff in his suit has not sought cancellation of the Exchange Deed and as such he is liable to pay the Court fees. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in “ Dharinder Singh and others Vs. Anoopjot Kaur and others” CR No 121 of 2025 decided on 26.03.2025, Law Finder Doc. I.D.

2710964.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent controverts the submissions of the petitioner and submits that plaintiff is not seeking possession of the suit property. Learned counsel refers to the prayer clause in the civil suit Annexure P-2 to submit that prayer has been made only for a decree of declaration to the effect that plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land as described therein and that the defendant has no concern or connection with the said land. A further declaration is sought that the Exchange Deed No.7595 dated 14.02.2011 in respect of 12 Kanals of land has been got executed by the defendant by cheating because exchange between the parties was only in respect of 4 Kanals of land and house of the defendant; and therefore the mutation dated 31.03.2011 on the basis of the said transfer deed is also against the law. It is accordingly prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 5. I find no merit in the submissions made on behalf of MONIKA RANIpetitioner/defendant. It is admitted fact on record that in adjudicating upon an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC only the averments made in the plaint are to be taken into consideration by the trial Court. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in numerous judgments that not even the written statement filed in the suit can be considered at the time of adjudicating upon an application Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. In fact, Revision Petition is not maintainable against the impugned order, in view of the following judgments of this Court in “Steel Authority of India Vs. M/s raja Steel Works and others” Law Finder Doc. I.D. 965439, date of decision on 11.08.2017” wherein it is held as under:-

“ C. Constitution of India, Article 227-Code of Civil Procedure 19