IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

120

CR-3725-2022 (O&M)

Date of decision: 08.09.2022

Ashish Hora and another

.....Petitioners

Versus

Chirag Hora and others

.....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present :

Mr. Harish Goyal, Advocate

for the petitioner.

****

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

, J. (ORAL)

The petitioners are impugning the dismissal of their

application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

(for short, 'the Code') by the Court below vide order dated 19.02.2020

(Annexure P-1).

Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that

the impugned order is patently illegal and contrary to the settled

principles of law pertaining to the rejection of a plaint. He submits that

the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the plaintiffs had challenged

mutations bearing No.10868 and 10869 in the suit in question, even

though the jurisdiction of Civil Court to set aside the entries of

mutation sanctioned by the revenue authorities is barred under Section

158 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as

'the Act'). Learned counsel submits that the only remedy as prescribed

under the Act was to challenge mutations by way of preferring an

appeal before the Divisional Commissioner. He further submits that the

suit had been filed much beyond the period of limitation and the plaint

was liable to be rejected on this ground as well.

VINAY

2022.09.13 09:46

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment

CR-3725-2022 (O&M)

-2-

I have heard learned counsel and perused the relevant

material on record.

The respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit in question praying

for cancellation of mutations No.10868 and 10869. In addition, the

respondents/plaintiffs have prayed for the following reliefs:-

"XXX

XXX

XXX

XXX

For separate possession by way of partition the above

mentioned joint property by metes and bounds

AND

For the decree of permanent injunction restraining the

defendants no.1 to 3 from raising any sort of construction

over the suit property or causing any damage to the suit

property and further restraining the defendants no.1 to 3

from changing the nature of the property existing on the

spot and running any institute either by itself or through

its official, President, Chairman, agent or attorney or any

other men

ON THE BASIS OF ORAL AND DOCUMENTARY

EVIDENCE"

The contention of the learned counsel that the plaint

deserves to be rejected on the ground of the jurisdiction of Civil Court

being barred in respect of mutations, is devoid of merit. Even if for the

sake of arguments it is assumed that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction

to set aside the mutations as in the instant case, still the plaint cannot be

rejected on this ground since the respondents/plaintiffs have made the

aforementioned reproduced multiple prayers while instituting the suit in

question. Thus, even if one of the reliefs prayed for, cannot be granted

as argued by learned counsel for the petitioners, the suit with respect to

the other reliefs sought would still subsist. A plaint cannot be rejected

partially as it has to be either rejected as a whole or not at all.

This Court also does not concur with the submissions made

by learned counsel that the suit instituted by the respondents/plaintiffs

VINAY

2022.09.13 09:46

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment

CR-3725-2022 (O&M)

-3-

is barred by limitation. A perusal of the averments made in the plaint

reveal that the respondents/plaintiffs learnt about the mutations only in

December, 2016. At the stage of deciding an application under Order 7

Rule 11 of the Code, Court cannot go into the truthfulness or veracity

of the averments made in the plaint. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Saleem D. Agboatwala and others Vs. Shamalji Oddhavji Thakkar

and others: 2021 (6) SC 502 has held that rejection of plaint under

Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code is a drastic power