130 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:09.02.2026 JITENDER AND ANOTHER ...Petitioners Vs.

M/S ELEGANT LAND AND HOUSING PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Vinay Kumar Pandey, Advocate for the petitioners.

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. (Oral)

1. The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction to the learned Trial Court to decide the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, filed by respondents No. 2, 3, 14 & 15/defendant No. 2, 3, 14 & 15 in Civil Suit No. 2094 of 2021, titled Santosh and Others vs. Ms. Elegant Land & Housing Pvt. Ltd. and Others (Annexures P-2, P-5, and P-6), in a time-bound manner. The first application for rejection of plaint was filed on 09.11.2021, and despite the lapse of four years, the application remains pending for adjudication.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the file carefully.

3. The first application for rejection of the plaint was filed by defendant Nos. 2 and 3 on 09.11.2021, and despite the passage of considerable time, it has remained pending for adjudication. Subsequently, a second application was filed by the other respondents on 10.05.2022, and since then, the matter has been continuously delayed. The delay is not only due to the pendency of these applications but also because of the non-service of notices to the remaining defendants, namely defendant Nos. 1, 10, 11, and 12. Despite multiple opportunities, notices for the service of these defendants have not been issued, causing further delays in the proceedings. As a result, the case has been languishing, awaiting consideration of the applications and proper service on the remaining parties.

4. A careful perusal of the case history reveals that the applications have been pending adjudication for a significant number of years and have not been taken up for disposal by the learned Civil Judge. The first application, in fact, has been pending for more than four years.

5. The purpose of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is to seek the dismissal of the suit at the threshold, in cases where no cause of action is disclosed, or where the suit is barred by law. Such applications are meant to facilitate the early disposal of frivolous or legally untenable suits, thus saving time and resources for the court and the parties involved. However, in the present case, despite the clear statutory objective of expeditious disposal, these applications have been left pending for an inordinate period, causing undue delays and significant inconvenience to the petitioners.

6. The failure of the learned Civil Judge to take up these applications for adjudication has resulted in a situation where the petitioners have been left in limbo, unable to proceed with their case or receive a resolution on their legitimate claims. The prolonged pendency of these applications not only undermines the efficiency of judicial proceedings but also impinges upon the principles of justice, which require timely and fair adjudication of disputes.

7. Given the exceptional delays and the clear prejudice caused to the petitioners, the circumstances of this case warrant the intervention of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The exercise of jurisdiction under this Article is necessary to ensure that justice is not delayed any further and that the learned Civil Judge is directed to expeditiously dispose of the pending applications.

8. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with direction to the learned Civil Judge to dispose of both the applications under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC within a period of two months from the next date fixed for hearing. This direction is issued to ensure that the matter is dealt with in a time-bound manner, safeguarding the petitioners' right to a fair and timely resolution.

(VIRINDER AGGARWAL)

JUDGE

09.02.2026 kv