IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Reserve: August 22, 2025 Date of Pronouncement:-11.09.2025 Sunita Walia ......Petitioner Vs.

Ramphal Singh .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Bhavyadeep Walia, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Sachin Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. Present revision petition is preferred against order dated 21.08.2019 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Chandigarh in Civil Suit No. 1269-2017 titled as Ramphal Singh vs. Sunita Walia, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that civil suit was barred under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC as well as hopelessly time barred since was filed after 32 years, was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was wrongly rejected by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Chandigarh. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the suit was barred by limitation and also under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. He, therefore, prays that the present petition be allowed.

3. In support of his contention, he has relied upon judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in a case of C.S. Ramaswamy vs. V.K. Senthil and ors, 2022 (4) RCR (Civil) 426.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contends that the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was rightly dismissed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Chandigarh by passing a well reasoned order. He, therefore, prays that the present petition be dismissed.

5. In support of his contention, he has relied upon judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in cases of Vinod Infra Developers Ltd vs. Mahaveer Lunia and others, 2025 INSC 772 and P .Kumarakurubaran vs. P. Narayanan and others, 2025 (2) RCR (Civil) 758.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole file of this case with their able assistance.

7. A bare perusal of the impugned order shows that the petitioner filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that prior to filing of the present suit, the respondent had earlier filed civil suit No. 1613 of 2016 titled as “Ramphal Singh vs. Sunita Walia and others”, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 16.05.2017 without obtaining any liberty to file subsequent suit on the same cause of action and the suit is barred under Order 23 Rule 1 (4) CPC. Further contention of the petitioner was that the present suit and the earlier suit are with respect to same property and same claim. Further that the respondent did not affix ad-valorem Court fee while filing the present suit.

8. In response to the same, the respondent submitted that earlier suit was not decided on merits and was dismissed as withdrawn on an application moved by the earlier counsel of the respondent wherein prayer for liberty to file fresh one was made, which was not specifically denied by the learned Court. Further that the respondent never relinquished his claim over the suit property and in the present suit also, he is seeking declaration of his ownership over the suit property on the basis of facts which were already mentioned in the previous suit and no new ground is taken in the present suit. Therefore, the suit is not barred and is within limitation. Further that the appropriate Court fee is affixed by the respondent.

9. It would be apposite to reproduce the relevant portion of the impugned order dated dated 21.08.2019, which reads as under:-

“6. As per Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:-

(a) Where it does not disclose a cause of action;

(b) Where the relief claimed is under-valued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to so correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(c) Where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper ins