133 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 15.10.2025 RAMAN GOSWAMI ALIAS RAMAN KUMAR AND OTHERS ....Petitioners Versus VED PARKASH AND OTHERS ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present : Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

Present revision petition is directed against order dated

04.09.2023 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Assandh, Karnal whereby application filed by the defendant seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, stands dismissed.

2. Plaintiffs filed suit for declaration with the consequential relief of permanent injunction with joint possession challenging the decree suffered by their predecessor-in-interest namely Phool Gir in Civil Suit No.441 of 1993. As per the averments made in the plaint, the plaintiffs claimed to have come to the knowledge w.r.t. said decree only after the defendants filed suit seeking decree of permanent injunction against them.

3. The defendants filed present application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC claiming that the suit was barred by limitation and thus the plaint needs to be rejected. It was claimed that the plaintiff Ved Parkash appeared in witness-box as DW3 in the previous lis bearing Civil Suit No.457 of 1996 titled as ‘Ram Kumar etc. vs. Phoolgir etc.’ where he admitted the fact of sanctioning of the mutation No.5958 on the basis of judgment and decree dated 31.09.1993 and thus, the plaintiff being in the knowledge of the said judgement and decree much prior to 2018, the present suit which is required to be filed within three years of the knowledge, was barred by time.

4. Trial Court dismissed the application holding that while deciding application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, it is only the plaint that needs to be looked into. The documents placed on record by the defendants which are not part of the plaint, cannot be considered.

5. Counsel for the petitioners has assailed the order passed by the Trial Court. He submits that the pleadings w.r.t. knowledge raised in the plaint is result of clever drafting. The suit which is barred by time, has been filed claiming the same to be well within limitation. Reliance is being placed upon ratio of law laid down in the case of C.S. Ramaswamy vs. V.K. Senthil and other, 2022(4) RCR(Civil) 426, Ramisetty Venkatanna and another vs. Nasyam Jamal Saheb and others, 2023 SCC Online SC 521, Coastal Gujarath Powerjen Private Limited vs. Lakshmanan and others, 2023 AIR CC 2254 and K. Akbar Ali vs. K. Umar Khan and other, 2021(3) Scale 47

6. I have heard counsel for the petitioners and have gone through records of the case.

7. The import of the Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been well explained by Apex Court in the case of ‘Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) (D) through LRs & ors.’, 2020 INSC 450 wherein after considering the entire case law, Apex Court observed as under:

“23.2. The remedy under Order 7 Rule 11 is an independent and special remedy, wherein the court is empowered to summarily dismiss a suit at the threshold, without proceeding to record evidence, and conducting a trial, on the basis of the evidence adduced, if it is satisfied that the action should be terminated on any of the grounds contained in this provision.

23.3. The underlying object of Order 7 Rule 11(a) is that if in a suit, no cause of action is disclosed, or the suit is barred by limitation under Rule 11(d), the court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in the suit. In such a case, it would be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation, so that further judicial time is not wasted.

23.4. In Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi [Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, 1986 Supp SCC 315. Followed in Manvendrasinhji Ranjitsinhji Jadeja v. Vijaykunverba, 1998 SCC OnLine Guj 281: (1998) 2 GLH 823] this Court held that the whole purpose of conferment of powers under this provision is to ensure