IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-7619-2025(O&M)

Date of decision: 30.10.2025 Dinesh Kumar & Another ...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Surinder Kumar & Others ...Respondent(s)

***

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Dr. Sandeep Kumar Passi, Advocate for the petitioners.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Revision Petition has been filed by the defendants No.1 and 2 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking setting aside of the order dated 08.09.2025 whereby application filed by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint, has been dismissed.

2. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that in a prior proceeding between the parties concluded vide judgment and decree dated 24.03.2017 (Annexure P3), the respondent/plaintiff has admitted in his written statement that the alleged Arbitration Award passed by the Arbitrators was not admitted by the present petitioners. It is submitted that the respondents/plaintiffs have further admitted that it was for this reason that another Agreement was arrived at between the parties for appointment of Arbitrator who had passed the alleged Award dated

16.02.2016. Ld. counsel submits that the said Award is already under challenge before this Court by way of Civil Revision No.3780 of 2022; in which vide order dated 15.12.2022 (Annexure P4), the Co-ordinate Bench has been pleased to stay further proceedings before the trial Court in the present suit. It is submitted that accordingly, Civil Suit of the respondent was not maintainable; and therefore, the learned trial Court was in error in dismissing the application of the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

3. No other argument is made on behalf of the petitioners.

4. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail.

I find no merit in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners.

5. Perusal of record of the case shows that the respondents/plaintiffs had filed a suit for permanent injunction (Annexure P1) on 14.10.2024. In the said Civil Suit, the petitioners/defendants No.1 and 2 had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC dated 19.12.2024 (Annexure P2). Perusal of the said application shows that the petitioners had sought rejection of the plaint on the ground that in the previous Civil Suit No.240-1 dated 03.12.2012 filed by the present petitioners against the present respondent No.1, the respondent No.1 had appeared and filed written statement dated 22.07.2016 ostensibly admitting therein that an Arbitration Agreement dated 25.08.2009 had been entered into between the parties; that thereafter, another Arbitration Agreement dated 03.12.2016 was entered into between the parties; whereafter, Award dated 16.02.2016 had been passed. It is the contention of the petitioners in the said application (Annexure P2) that from the above admission, it is clear that the respondents had forged the alleged Agreement dated 25.08.2009 as well as the alleged Award on the basis of which present suit had been filed. Further pleadings along similar lines have been made by the petitioners in their said application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

6. However, it is an established position in law that at the stage of deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only the averments made in the plaint are to be seen. To establish the correctness of the above noted assertions made by the petitioner, it would require not just looking at pleadings beyond the plaint but would also require leading of evidence. On a Court query, learned counsel for the petitioner has candidly admitted that the plaintiff-respondent has not mentioned the Arbitration Award in the plaint. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in numerous judgments including “Eldeco Housing and Industries Ltd. Vs. Ashok Vidyarthi & Others” Law Finder Doc ID # 2406865, has repeatedly held that no evidence, or merits of the controversy can be examined at the stage of deciding rejection of a plaint in an application under Order 7 Rule 11