IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-6065-2025 DECIDED ON: 30.10.2025 KAWARJIT AND ANOTHER .....PETITIONERS VERSUS MISS ALISHA MALIK AND ANOTHER .....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Raj Kumar Bhatia, Advocate and Mr.Nitish Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioners.

MANDEEP PANNU, J

1. The present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 21.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hisar, whereby the application moved by the petitioners–defendants under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) for rejection of plaint has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that respondent No. 1–plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 01.02.2021 executed in respect of a double-storey house. As per the plaint, defendant No. 1 (for herself and on behalf of defendant No. 2) agreed to sell the said property to the plaintiff for a total ₹ ₹

sale consideration of 1,23,00,000/–. Out of the said amount, 5,00,000/–

₹

was paid at the time of agreement, 10,84,341/– was deposited with the ₹

concerned department (defendant No. 3), and another 5,00,000/– was paid to defendant No. 1 on 19.05.2021.

3. The plaintiff further sought a decree of mandatory injunction directing defendants No. 1 and 2 to execute the sale deed in her favour after obtaining the requisite transfer permission from defendant No. 3, and a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from creating third-party rights in the suit property.

4. The petitioners–defendants moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, praying for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the alleged transaction was benami, illegal, and barred by law. It was contended that an act prohibited by law cannot be validated through a civil suit; that the plaint contains false averments and a defective verification; and that the plaintiff had neither pleaded nor shown her readiness and willingness to perform her part of the contract. The defendants also relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 5819–5822 of 2021, to argue that where the relief claimed is ex facie untenable, the plaint should be rejected at the threshold.

5. The learned trial Court, after hearing both sides, held that the contentions raised in the application pertain to the merits of the case, which cannot be adjudicated without evidence. It was observed that the grounds urged related to the alleged non-payment of sale consideration, readiness and willingness of the plaintiff, and nature of transaction issues that necessarily require adjudication after trial. Consequently, the application was dismissed vide impugned order dated 21.08.2025.

6. Aggrieved from the above-said impugned order, the defendants have preferred the present revision petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has reiterated the submissions raised before the trial Court and argued that the impugned order suffers from patent illegality. It is urged that the suit is barred by law, as the transaction is benami in nature and the relief of specific performance, being discretionary and equitable, cannot be claimed by a party who has not pleaded or proved readiness and willingness to perform her part. It is contended that absence of such pleadings in the plaint renders it liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC.

8. The matter being limited in scope and involving a short question of law, no notice was considered necessary to be issued to the respondents.

9. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and carefully perused the record.

10. The scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC is well-settled. It provides for rejection of a plaint in the following circumstances:

(i). Where it does not disclose a cause of act