Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1888 (PNJ)

Dalwinder Singh v. Harbhajan Kaur

2021-12-07

RAJBIR SEHRAWAT

body2021
Judgment Mr. Rajbir Sehrawat, J. This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitutionof India has been filed by the petitioners praying for setting aside orderdated 09.03.2021 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar,whereby the application filed by the petitioners was dismissed; alongwith certain other prayers. 2.The facts of the case are that the respondents filed a suitseeking permanent injunction against the present petitioners, claimingthat the respondents-plaintiffs were co-sharer in the suit property andwere in possession of the same. The petitioners-defendants were tryingto disturb their possession. The petitioners-defendants were wronglyclaiming family partition. The same was never acted upon by the parties.The suit of the respondents was contested by the petitioners-defendantsclaiming that the defendants were in exclusive possession. However,before the trial court the petitioners-defendants preferred an applicationunder Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground thatthere is no cause of action with the respondents-plaintiffs to file the suit.The said application has been dismissed by the trial court. Hence thepresent petition has been filed. 3.Arguing the case, learned counsel for the petitioners hassubmitted that since the respondents-plaintiffs themselves have admittedin the plaint that they were ousted from the possession of the property,therefore, there is no cause of action available to the plaintiffs. It isfurther submitted that mere averment in the plaint that the plaintiffs havere-entered into the possession of the said property, without mentioningany specific date, is not a valid ground for filing a suit. 4.Having heard the counsel for the petitioners and havingperused the case file, this court does not find any substance in thearguments of the counsel for the petitioners. Needless to say that whiledeciding an application, moved under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the trialcourt is only to look at the pleadings in the plaint, as un-contested by thedefendant, to see if the cause of action is disclosed in pleadings of theplaintiff. The merits of the case, the veracity of the pleadings orsustainability of the claim of the plaintiff is not to be assessed at the timeof decision of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. A perusal ofthe plaint filed by the respondents-plaintiffs does show a cause of action,as claimed by them. The plaintiffs have claimed themselves to be co-ownerand to be in possession of a portion of the property, with a furtherassertion that the defendants are trying to dispossess them of the sameillegally. A perusal ofthe plaint filed by the respondents-plaintiffs does show a cause of action,as claimed by them. The plaintiffs have claimed themselves to be co-ownerand to be in possession of a portion of the property, with a furtherassertion that the defendants are trying to dispossess them of the sameillegally. Hence, by any means, it cannot be said that the cause of actionis not disclosed from the pleadings as raised in the plaint. This courtdoes not find any illegality or irregularity in the conclusion arrived at bythe court below in this regard. 5.Hence, finding no merits in the present petition the same isdismissed.