IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 08.04.2026 Abhishek Goyal ...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Lalit Bansal and others ...Respondent(s)

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

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by defendant No.2 seeking setting aside of the order dated 02.01.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Malerkotla; whereby application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint, has been dismissed.

2. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that learned Trial Court was in patent error in dismissing the application of the petitioner as it failed to appreciate that during his evidence, plaintiff himself has duly admitted that similar matter had been previously adjudicated upon by the learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur. Plaintiff in his cross-examination has also admitted the pendency of the appeals. It was, therefore, clear that the suit is barred by principle of res judicata. However, learned Trial Court has wrongly held that