Allowed

Gulzari v. Zile Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Sept 2013CR/1834/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana held that the trial court committed a jurisdictional error by dismissing the plaintiff's application for rejection of plaint. The Court allowed the revision, recognizing a bar under Order 23 Rule 1(4) CPC, and rejected the second plaint filed on the same subject matter.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 14.1.2013 set aside; application for rejection of plaint allowed; plaint rejected.

Gulzari Vs Zile Singh — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 1834 of 2013

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Revision No. 1834 of 2013 Date of decision : September 10, 2013

Gulzari

....Petitioner

versus

Zile Singh

....Respondent

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

¶11

Present : Mr. Amit Khatkar, Advocate, for the petitioner

¶12

Mr. Sumeet Sheokand, Advocate, for the respondent

¶13

L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)

¶14

Defendant Gulzari has approached this Court by way of instant revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 14.1.2013 passed by the trial court thereby dismissing application filed by defendant-petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC) for rejection of plaint dated 05.4.2010 Annexure P/7 instituted by respondent-plaintiff Zile Singh against defendant-petitioner.

¶15

Defendant inter alia alleged that previous suit filed by the

¶16

Tiwana Dalbir Singh 2013.09.12 09:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document. High Court, Chandigarh

¶17

Civil Revision No. 1834 of 2013

¶18

-2-

¶19

plaintiff vide plaint dated 10.6.1999 Annexure P/4 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 6.8.2002 Annexure P/5 and therefore, the instant second suit is barred.

¶20

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the instant second suit is barred in view of dismissal of the earlier suit as withdrawn.

¶21

On the other hand, counsel for respondent-plaintiff contended that in the instant second suit, there are different grounds.

¶22

I have carefully considered the matter. Vide plaint Annexure P/4, the plaintiff challenged consent judgment and decree dated 5.3.1994 passed in favour of defendant-petitioner against one Dhapan and sought consequential relief. The said suit was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 6.8.2002 Annexure P/5. In the instant plaint Annexure P/7 also, the plaintiff has again challenged the same consent judgment and decree dated 5.3.1994 and has sought consequential relief. Consequently, the instant second suit is clearly barred by law i.e. Order 23 Rule 1(4) CPC. Consequently, plaint Annexure P/7 is liable to rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. In these circumstances, impugned order passed by the trial court dismissing application filed by defendant for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is patently illegal and suffers from jurisdictional error. The trial court did not advert to the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1(4) CPC by

¶23

Tiwana Dalbir Singh 2013.09.12 09:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document. High Court, Chandigarh

¶24

Civil Revision No. 1834 of 2013

¶25

-3-

¶26

which the plaintiff is precluded from filing the instant second suit in view of dismissal of his previous suit as withdrawn.

¶27

Resultantly, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 14.1.2013 passed by the trial court is set aside. Application filed by the defendant-petitioner for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is allowed and plaint Annexure P/7 instituted by respondentplaintiff against defendant-petitioner stands rejected.

¶28

Civil miscellaneous application, if any pending, is disposed of

¶29

as having been rendered infructuous.

¶30

( L.N. Mittal ) September 10, 2013 Judge 'dalbir'

¶31

Tiwana Dalbir Singh 2013.09.12 09:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document. High Court, Chandigarh

Gulzari v. Zile Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulzari v. Zile Singh

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

Anil Kumar Puri Vs Hari Krishan Kakkar

Municipal Corporation (Council), Thanesar Vs Ravi Gupta

Jai Bhagwan Vs Attar Kala and Ors.

Raj Kumar Vs Paramjeet Kaur and Ors.

M/S B.S.Industries Darapur Vs State Bank of Patiala

Pritam Singh Vs Tilak Raj & Anr.