IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-9918-2025 DECIDED ON: 08.01.2026 BIHARI LAL AND OTHERS .....PETITIONERS VERSUS DWARKA PARSAD AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate and Mr. Nitin Sansanwal, Advocate for the petitioners.

MANDEEP PANNU, J (ORAL)

1. The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners assailing the order dated 10.12.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hathin, District Palwal, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking rejection of the plaint was dismissed.

2. At the outset, this Court is of the considered view that no notice is required to be issued to the respondents, as the controversy involved is short, lies within a narrow compass, and can be adjudicated on the basis of the pleadings and material already available on record.

3. The petitioners sought rejection of the plaint primarily on the grounds of limitation and alleged absence of cause of action, contending that the challenge to the mutation and the Wills was barred by delay of several decades and that the plaintiff’s own pleadings negate his claim. The learned trial Court, after examining the plaint as a whole, declined to reject the same, holding that the issues raised could not be conclusively determined at the threshold.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. A perusal of the plaint shows that specific pleadings have been made regarding adoption, fraud and the date of discovery thereof. The plaintiff has asserted that the impugned mutation and Wills came to his knowledge only in May 2024. Where fraud is specifically pleaded, the question as to when such fraud was discovered is essentially a matter of evidence. In such circumstances, limitation becomes a mixed question of law and fact, which cannot be decided merely on a demurrer by invoking Order VII Rule 11 CPC, unless the suit is ex facie barred on the face of the plaint.

5. It is well settled that for the purpose of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the averments contained in the plaint alone are to be seen and the defence set up by the defendants cannot be looked into. Reading the plaint as a whole, it cannot be said that it does not disclose a cause of action or that the suit is barred by limitation on its face. The learned trial Court has rightly held that the questions relating to adoption, fraud and the correctness of the date of knowledge require evidence and cannot be adjudicated at the threshold.

6. The impugned order reflects a correct application of the settled principles governing Order VII Rule 11 CPC and does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The present Civil Revision Petition is nothing but an attempt to short-

circuit the trial at a premature stage.

7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

8. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

(MANDEEP PANNU)

08.01.2026 JUDGE

Poonam Negi