IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

242 CR-1531-2017(O&M)

Date of decision: 06.11.2025 Rajen Chandrakant ...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Divya Investment Consultants & Another ...Respondent(s)

***

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Sanjay Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ashok Gupta, Advocate for the respondents.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 18.02.2017 (Annexure P1) passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambala whereby application filed by the petitioner 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 petitioner that the impugned order is prima facie unsustainable because as per the plaint/suit (Annexure P2), the total controversy is with regard to the sale and purchase of equity shares and money transaction between the investor/respondent-plaintiff and the Stock Broker/petitioner-defendant. It is submitted that as such, in terms of provisions of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as “the SEBI Act”) jurisdiction of the Civil Suit is barred. Learned counsel argues that as per Section 11 of the said Act, the Board under the Act has the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under CPC. The Board under Section 15-I of the Act, has powers to adjudicate the present controversy; and to deal with regard to penalty for default in case of Stockbrokers (Section 15-F of the Act). Learned counsel takes this Court extensively through the provisions of the Act to further substantiate his said arguments. It is contended that accordingly, the learned trial Court has wrongly interpreted the provisions of the Act resulting into passing of the illegal impugned order.

3. It is further argued that Order 7 Rule 11 CPC casts a duty on the Court to perform its obligation in rejecting the plaint when the same is hit by any of the infirmities provided in the four clauses of Rule 11, even without intervention of the defendant. Learned counsel submits that this is especially so in the present case as suit of the plaintiff was not maintainable; as respondent has filed suit only for mandatory injunction and not for declaration or recovery.

4. Furthermore, in passing the impugned order, the learned trial court has also ignored the fact that previously also, an application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC had been dismissed by the learned trial Court; which had been challenged by the petitioner before this Court vide Civil Revision No.2154 of 2007; which had been allowed by this Court vide order dated 13.11.2014 and the learned trial Court was directed to decide the issue afresh. It is submitted that despite that again an order has been passed by the learned trial Court rejecting the application of the petitioner. Learned counsel accordingly prays that Revision Petition be allowed and impugned order dated 18.02.2017 (Annexure P1) be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent No.1 submits that the prayer sought by the plaintiff can only be granted through Civil Suit. Learned counsel accordingly prays for dismissal of the present Revision Petition.

6. No other argument is made on behalf of the parties.

7. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. 8. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a registered Stockbroker. It is the case of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 that he had invested through the petitioner; however, the petitioner had shortchanged the plaintiff. Accordingly, plaintiff filed the instant Civil Suit No.148 dated 11.03.1995 (Annexure P2) seeking a decree of mandatory injunction against the petitioner; inter alia praying that the petitioner be directed to: –

“(I) The defendant No.1 may please be directed to make deliver of the following shares and debentures: -

(a) 300 shares of th