Dismissed

Balkar Singh v. Gulwinder Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Dec 2024CR/1810/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition challenging dismissal of an Order VII Rule 11 CPC application seeking rejection of a possession suit against the petitioner. The court held that specific reference to the petitioner's land in the plaint disclosed a cause of action and veracity of allegedly forged documents was triable. A new court-fee ground was rejected as not raised earlier.

What the court decided

AI extract

Balkar Singh Vs Gulwinder Singh — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

126

¶3

CR-1810-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision : 12.12.2024

Balkar Singh

....Petitioner

VERSUS

Gulwinder Singh

....Respondents

CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

¶10

Present : Mr. Shadab Ahmed, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

¶12

Present revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 20.02.2024 whereby the application filed by defendant No.4 (petitioner herein) under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been dismissed.

¶13

The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiffrespondent herein filed a suit for possession in respect of the land as detailed in the plaint as also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit land. Written statement was filed by the defendant No.4petitioner herein raising preliminary objections as well as inter alia stating that the suit has been filed on the basis of forged documents. An application was filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC wherein it was stated that there is no cause of action against defendant No.4-petitioner and also that the suit was barred by limitation. Reply was filed to the said application. Vide the impugned order dated 20.02.2024 the application was dismissed.

¶14

Learned counsel for the defendant No.4-petitioner would contend that no cause of action is made out against defendant No.4-

¶15

JITENDER KUMAR 2024.12.13 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. High Court, Chandigarh

¶16

CR-1810-2024 -2-

¶17

petitioner and that he has no role to play in the present suit and he has wrongly been impleaded as a party.

¶18

Heard.

¶19

In the present case, though the case of the defendant No.4petitioner is that he is not a necessary party, however, in the plaint there is specific reference to the land of the defendant No.4-petitioner and also of his father which land is part of the suit land. Counsel for the defendant No.4petitioner argued that the plaintiff-respondent is seeking to take possession of the inherited land on the basis of forged documents. That being so, it cannot be said that there is no cause of action against the defendant No.4petitioner. The veracity of the documents can only be gone into during the trial.

¶20

Learned counsel for the defendant No.4-petitioner during the course of arguments also raised an argument that ad valorem court fee has not affixed and hence, the suit was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. A perusal of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC reveals that no such ground was raised by the defendant No.4-petitioner nor was it argued before the Trial Court. Even in the grounds of revision the said ground was not being raised. In view thereof, the argument stands rejected. 7. In view of the above, present revision petition being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

¶21

12.12.2024 jk

¶22

NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO

¶23

JITENDER KUMAR 2024.12.13 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. High Court, Chandigarh

Balkar Singh v. Gulwinder Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Balkar Singh v. Gulwinder Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subhash Kumar Bansal and Anr. Vs Banarsi Dass (Since Deceased) through His Lrs and Ors.

Minder Kaur and Another Vs Himanshu and Others

Savitri Devi and Ors. Vs Ashok Kumar and Anr.

Hazari Lal and Others Vs Sushil Bindal and Others

Hazari Lal and Others Vs Dropadi Devi

Pritpal Singh Vs M/S Futuristic Solutions Private Limited