Dismissed

Baldev Singh v. Jasmail Kaur and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Sept 2011CR/5724/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision dismissed challenging an order dismissing an application to reject a plaint on premised limitation. The court held that limitation is a mixed question requiring trial of evidence, so the application could not be rejected at the threshold without hearing the plaintiffs.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed in limine; no opinion expressed on the actual limitation defence which will be decided after trial.

Baldev Singh Vs Jasmail Kaur and Others — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 5724 of 2011

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Revision No. 5724 of 2011 Date of decision : September 20, 2011

Baldev Singh

....Petitioner

versus

Jasmail Kaur and others

¶9

....Respondents

¶10

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal

¶11

Present : Mr. Vaibhav Sehgal, Advocate, for the petitioner

¶12

L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)

¶13

Defendant no. 3 Baldev Singh has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by filing the instant civil revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to assail order dated 2.9.2011, Annexure P/1 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana thereby dismissing application Annexure P/3 moved by defendant no. 3 under Order 7 Rule 11 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC) for rejection of plaint Annexure P/2 filed by respondent nos. 1 and 2/plaintiffs against respondents no. 3 and 4/defendants no. 1 and 2 (officials of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited) and petitioner Baldev Singh defendant no. 3.

¶14

Plaintiffs in the suit sought declaration that they are holders of

¶15

Civil Revision No. 5724 of 2011 -2-

¶16

disputed electricity connection which stood in the name of their predecessor Lachhman Singh (father-in-law of plaintiff and grand-father of plaintiff no. 2) who died in the year 1968 but the said electricity connection was mutated in the name of defendant no. 3 in the year 1993-94. Defendant no. 3 is brother of Lachhman Singh. The plaintiffs also alleged that the said electricity connection has been disconnected on 8.7.2011 by defendants no. 1 and 2. The plaintiffs accordingly also sought restoration of the said electricity connection by mandatory injunction.

¶17

Defendant no. 3 in his application Annexure P/3 alleged that the suit is barred by limitation as the electricity connection was transferred in the name of defendant no. 3 in June, 1994 whereas the suit has been instituted in the year 2011 and therefore, the plaint is liable to rejection.

¶18

Plaintiffs by filing reply Annexure P/4 controverted the aforesaid application Annexure P/3. It was alleged that plaintiffs came to know of the illegality of the connection standing in the name of the defendant no. 3 when the electricity connection was disconnected on 8.7.2011 and therefore, the suit is within limitation from the date of knowledge.

¶19

Learned trial court vide impugned order Annexure P/1 dismissed the application moved by defendant no. 3 for rejection of the plaint. Feeling aggrieved, defendant no. 3 has filed the instant revision petition.

¶20

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

¶21

case file.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that

¶23

Civil Revision No. 5724 of 2011 -3-

¶24

suit for declaration is patently barred by limitation because the electricity connection was mutated in the name of defendant in the year 1993-94 as per plaint averments and therefore, in the absence of relief of declaration even relief of mandatory injunction cannot be granted.

¶25

I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention. The plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold because question of limitation would be mixed question of law and fact. It has been stated by plaintiffs in reply Annexure P/4 that they came to know of the electricity connection standing in the name of defendant no. 3 only when the electricity connection was disconnected on 8.7.2011. Consequently, it would be seen after trial i.e. after the parties lead evidence whether the suit is within limitation or not. Merely on the basis of application Annexure P/3, without trial of the suit, it cannot be said that the suit is barred by limitation. Consequently, application moved by defendant no. 3 has been rightly dismissed by trial court by way of impugned order.

¶26

For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition because impugned order cannot be said to be perverse or illegal nor it suffers from lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed in limine. However, it is expressly made clear that no opinion has been expressed in this order as to whether the suit is within limitation or not and the said issue will be decided by the trial court after the parties lead their evidence.

¶27

September 20, 2011 'dalbir'

Baldev Singh v. Jasmail Kaur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baldev Singh v. Jasmail Kaur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bimla Devi Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Ravinder Singh Vs Registrar of Companies and Anr.

Gurbachan Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Gobind Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Gobind Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Iqbal Singh Vs State of Haryana and Anr.