Dismissed

Partap Singh v. Krishna Devi and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 May 2012CR/5394/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application for rejection of plaint. The suit involved recovery of money paid under an alleged fraudulent sale-deed. The court held that the plaint could not be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC given the doubts raised regarding fraud and possession.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed as the impugned order did not call for interference.

Partap Singh Vs Krishna Devi and… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 5394 of 2011

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Revision No. 5394 of 2011 (O&M)

¶5

Date of decision : 23.5.2012

Partap Singh

..... Petitioner

Smt. Krishna Devi and another

¶10

..... Respondents

¶11

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal

¶12

Present: Mr. Onkar Rai, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶13

Rajesh Bindal J.

¶14

Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 1.6.2011 passed by the learned court below whereby the application filed by the petitioner-defendant for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, was dismissed.

¶15

Proceedings in the present case arise out of a suit for recovery of ` 2,65,000/- along with interest and cost filed by the respondents against the petitioner pleading that though sale-deed was got registered by the petitioner in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs after taking the money, however, when they had gone to take the possession, it was resisted by Ramesh Chand son of Bhim Singh claiming that sale-deed got registered by the petitioner is the result of fraud as he did not have any right to sell the property. The plaintiffs also got FIR No. 170 dated 15.4.2007 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station City Ballabgarh, District Faridabad, against the petitioner. It is under these circumstances that the suit for recovery was filed in which the petitioner filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint, which was dismissed by the learned court below vide order dated 1.6.2011.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once admittedly the sale-deed regarding the property had been registered in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs and the same has not been cancelled till

¶17

Civil Revision No. 5394 of 2011

¶18

(2)

¶19

date, the suit for recovery cannot be filed. There was no cause of action, hence, the plaint was required to be rejected.

¶20

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and persuing the averments made by the respondents-plaintiffs in the suit where the allegations are that they have been defrauded by getting the sale-deed registered pertaining to the property which the petitioner could not sell and also the fact that they were not put in possession of the property, in my opinion, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The impugned order does not call for interference by this court. The petition is dismissed.

¶21

23.5.2012 vs.

¶22

(Rajesh Bindal) Judge

Partap Singh v. Krishna Devi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Partap Singh v. Krishna Devi and Anr.

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

Gurdev Singh Sehmy Vs Ludhiana Improvement Trust

Nankana Sahib Education Trust Vs Buta Singh and Others

Satish Kumar Vs Ritu Rani

Kuldeep Singh Vs Guraditta Singh and Ors.

Sudesh Rani Vs Subhash Chand Narang

Phool Singh Vs Manga and Ors.