##PAGE1##

CR-3303-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

****

CR-3303-2025 (O&M)

PARMOD KUMAR AND OTHERS

. . . . Petitioners

Vs.

Balwinder Singh and others

. . . . Respondents

****

Reserved on: 07.05.2026

Pronounced on: 08.05.2026

Pronounced Fully/Operative Part: Fully

****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

****

Present: - Mr. K.S. Billing, Advocate, for

Mr. Navdeep S. Khokhar, Advocate, for the petitioners.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

The present civil revision petition has been filed by the defendants-

petitioners challenging the order dated 04.02.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed by the

learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sri Anandpur Sahib, whereby the application

filed under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC for rejection of the plaint

was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the suit instituted

by the plaintiff-respondent seeking rectification of sale deed dated 11.03.1991,

declaration, possession and permanent injunction is hopelessly barred by

limitation. It is argued that mutation No.2509 had been sanctioned long ago with

the consent of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff and no objection was

ever raised for decades. It is further submitted that earlier litigation between the

parties had already attained finality and, therefore, no surviving cause of action

existed in favour of the plaintiff. On the strength of these submissions, it is

contended that the plaint deserved rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

VIVEK PAHWA

2026.05.08 19:17

I th a isg r de oe c uto m s ep ne tcified portions of Page 1 of 3

Chandigarh

CR-3303-2025

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the

impugned order as well as the record produced before this Court.

4. After considering the submissions, this Court does not find any

illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference in

exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

5. The settled legal position governing an application under Order VII

Rule 11 CPC is that only the averments made in the plaint are required to be

considered and the defence raised by the defendants cannot be looked into at that

stage. The Court is required to assume the averments contained in the plaint to be

correct for the limited purpose of determining whether the plaint discloses a cause

of action or whether the suit is barred by any law apparent from the plaint itself.

6. A reading of the plaint shows that the plaintiff has specifically

pleaded that fraud and mistake came to his knowledge subsequently and that the

entries reflected in the mutation and sale deed require rectification. The plaint

further contains specific pleadings regarding cause of action in paragraphs 8 to 11

thereof. Whether such assertions are ultimately proved or not is essentially a

matter of evidence and adjudication on merits. At this stage, the Court cannot

embark upon a detailed examination of disputed questions of fact.

7. The plea of limitation raised by the petitioners also cannot be

conclusively adjudicated merely on the basis of the plaint in the present case. The

question as to when the alleged fraud or discrepancy came to the knowledge of

the plaintiff and whether the suit is within limitation are mixed questions of law

and fact requiring evidence. Unless the suit is ex facie barred from a plain reading

of the plaint itself, rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC is impermissible.

8. The learned trial Court has rightly observed that the pleas raised by

the defendants are subject matter of evidence and that the plaint discloses a cause

of action. The reasoning recorded by the trial Court is consistent with the settled

principles governing exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

9. The revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC is limited in nature

and is to be exercised only where the subordinate Court has exercised jurisdiction

VIVEK PAHWA

2026.05.08 19:17

I th a isg r de oe c uto m s ep ne tcified portions of Page 2 of 3

Chandigarh

CR-3303-2025

not vested in it by law,