1. Civil revision against order declining application for rejection of plaint in suit challenging sale deed as fraudulent. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 139421
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Amarjot Bhatti, J
Sudha Rani – Appellant
Versus
Gurpreet Singh – Respondent
CR-6074-2026
Important Points
For the rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the court must exclusively examine the plaint's contents. Allegations of fraud and non-payment of consideration provide a triable cause of action that cannot be dismissed in a summary manner.
Subject
Civil Law - Procedural Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Civil Procedure Code - Rejection of Plaint - Order 7 Rule 11 - Scope of inquiry - For the purpose of deciding an application for rejection of plaint, the court must look solely into the contents of the plaint; the stand taken in the written statement or other documents cannot be relied upon at this stage. (Para 4)
(B) Cause of Action - Suit for Declaration and Recovery - Where a plaint alleges fraud, misrepresentation, and non-payment of sale consideration for a registered sale deed, along with a claim for recovery of the unpaid amount, it cannot be determined in a summary manner that no cause of action exists. (Para 4)
Issues: Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the ground that non-payment of sale consideration does not entitle a vendor to seek cancellation of a registered sale deed.
(B) Cause of Action - Suit for Declaration and Recovery - Where a plaint alleges fraud, misrepresentation, and non-payment of sale consideration for a registered sale deed, along with a claim for recovery of the unpaid amount, it cannot be determined in a summary manner that no cause of action exists. (Para 4)
Issues: Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the ground that non-payment of sale consideration does not entitle a vendor to seek cancellation of a registered sale deed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- practice and procedure
- property law
- remedies
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ajayvir Singh, Tanvir Singh Narang
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ajayvir Singh, Tanvir Singh Narang
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued no cause of action as registered sale deed cannot be set aside for non-payment of consideration. Plaint disclosed cause of action. (Para 2 , 4 )
3. For Order 7 Rule 11, only plaint contents are considered; plaint alleging fraud, misrepresentation, and lack of consideration disclosed cause of action. (Para 4 )
4. Whether plaint discloses cause of action is determined solely from plaint averments, not written statement or other documents. (Para 4 )
5. Civil revision declined; impugned order upholding rejection of application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is upheld. (Para 4 , 5 )
6. What is the scope of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC regarding rejection of plaint?
Only the contents of the plaint are to be examined; written statement or other documents cannot be relied upon at this stage. (Para 4 )
7. Does non-payment of sale consideration after registration render a sale deed void or voidable?
Mere non-payment or partial payment of sale consideration does not render a registered sale deed void or voidable; other remedies exist for the aggrieved person. (Para 2 )
8. Can a suit challenging a sale deed on grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, and lack of consideration be rejected for no cause of action?
No, such allegations in the plaint disclose a cause of action and cannot be summarily rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. (Para 4 )
*****
AMARJOT BHATTI, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner/defendant No.1 Sudha Rani filed civil revision against impugned order dated 17.04.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Dera Bassi in Civil Suit No.1055 of 2021 titled as “Gurpreet Singh Vs. Sudha Rani and Others” whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC has been wrongly declined.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that Gurpreet Singh filed suit for declaration challenging the sale deed as well as mutation taking the stand that the sale deed was result of fraud, misrepresentation and without consideration; further suit for possession, permanent injunction and recovery of Rs.14 lacs along with interest and damages on account of unpaid sale consideration. During the pendency of the said suit, Sudha Rani present petitioner/defendant No.1 filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint on the ground that plaintiff had no cause of action to file the suit. Once the sale deed is executed and registered, mere non-payment or partial payment of sale consideration does not render the sale deed void or voidable nor the vendor can seek cancellation of sale deed. The sale deed is complete, once it is registered even if the sale consideration is not paid and for that other remedy is available to the aggrieved person. Therefore, in view of the provision of under Order 7 Rule 11 A CPC the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit. Without considering the aforesaid factual position, application filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1 has been wrongly rejected. Therefore, the impugned order dated 17.04.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Dera Bassi may kindly be set aside by accepting the present civil revision and the plaint filed by the plaintiff may kindly be rejected.
3. The petitioner has annexed all relevant documents for the appreciation of the matter in controversy. No purpose would be served by issuing notice to the respondent/plaintiff. Therefore, the service of contesting respondent is, accordingly, dispensed with.
4. I have considered the arguments and have gone through the record carefully. The application has been filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC which deals with the rejection of plaint which runs as under:-
11. Rejection of plaint 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 undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to 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 returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;
[(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;]
[(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9;]
[Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.]
Therefore, to appreciate the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC the contents of the plaint are to be looked into. The stand taken in the written statement or any other document cannot be relied upon at this stage. In the case in hand, application was filed for rejection of plaint by alleging that plaintiff had no cause of action to file the present suit. I have gone through the plaint annexed with the present petition (
