##PAGE1##

CR-3711-2017 (O&M)

1 of 7

(cid:1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

(cid:1)

152 CR-3711-2017 (O&M)

Date of decision: 18.05.2026

(cid:1)

Mohlar (deceased) through his LRs ...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Karan Singh and others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:- Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate with(cid:1)

Mr. Ishan Aggarwal, Advocate(cid:1)

for the petitioner.(cid:1)

(cid:1)

Mr. Rakesh Dhiman, Advocate(cid:1)

for the respondents.(cid:1)

***(cid:1)

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India has been filed by LRs of defendant No.2 laying

challenge to the order dated 2.05.2017 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram; whereby application filed by the

petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, has been dismissed.(cid:1)

2. Brief facts of the case in chronological order are as follows: -(cid:1)

03.12.2015: Plaintiff/respondent No.1 had filed a Civil Suit dated

03.12.2015 (Annexure P-1) for declaration and permanent injunction. (cid:1)

28.04.2016: LRs of defendant No.2 had filed instant application dated

28.04.2016 (Annexure P-2) under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the

plaint on two grounds - being res judicata and limitation.(cid:1)

DIVYANSHI

2026.05.20 17:23

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order

(cid:1)

CR-3711-2017 (O&M)

2 of 7

(cid:1)

15.07.2016: Plaintiff had filed reply dated 15.07.2016 (Annexure P-3) to

the said application of petitioner/LRs of defendant No.2.(cid:1)

02.05.2017: Vide impugned order dated 02.05.2017 (Annexure P-4),

application of the petitioners has been dismissed. (cid:1)

3. Hence, present Revision Petition.(cid:1)

4. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the

petitioners/LRs of defendant No.2 that learned Trial Court was in patent

error in dismissing application of the petitioners as petitioners had clearly

demonstrated that the respondent/plaintiff was well aware of the

impugned Sale Deed dated 30.05.1992 executed by Ram Parshad in favour

of the petitioners. Yet, the instant suit was filed only on 03.12.2015.

Clearly, therefore, suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation.(cid:1)

5. It is further submitted that the plaintiff has admitted in the

plaint itself that the petitioner had previously filed a declaration suit

against the respondent, which came to be decreed vide concurrent

judgments and decrees of the learned District Courts. Thus, Petitioner had

demonstrated from the plaint that the civil suit is barred by res judicata

as well as limitation. However, the learned Civil Judge has failed to

appreciate these facts. (cid:1)

6. It is accordingly prayed that the present Revision Petition be

allowed; and the impugned order be set aside.(cid:1)

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff

counters submissions of the petitioner by submitting that the previous

DIVYANSHI

2026.05.20 17:23

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order

(cid:1)

CR-3711-2017 (O&M)

3 of 7

(cid:1)

suit had been filed by the petitioner only for permanent injunction;

whereas the present suit has been filed by the respondent for declaration

alongwith consequential relief of permanent injunction. It is submitted

that no doubt, respondent was aware of the Sale Deed dated 30.05.1992

executed by Ram Parshad in favour of the petitioner however, part of the

suit land was also sold to the respondent. Moreover, respondent has also

pleaded that the said Sale Deed was fraudulently and illegally executed by

Ram Parshad without any right, title or interest in the suit property. It is

submitted that therefore, both the said issues are mixed questions of fact

and law. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from no error. He

accordingly prays that the present Revision Petition be dismissed.(cid:1)

8. No other argument is raised on behalf of the parties. I have

heard ld. counsel and perused the case file in great detail. I find merit in

the submissions advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner.(cid:1)

9. The respo