Dismissed¶25

Shakti Lathar v. Sumita and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Sept 2025CR/1656/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Order VII Rule 11 CPC; rejection of plaint; limitation triable at trial not at threshold; Article 227 revision; cause of action July 2021 disclosure of Will of Umed Singh; Wills dated 18.11.2004 and 14.02.2011; mutation; alleged compromise and maintainability of suit; co-owner declaration suit; widowed daughter-in-law inheritance claim; Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh; CR-1656-2022 (O&M); decided 03.09.2025 by Justice Alka Sarin; speaking order.

What did the court decide?

None; the revision petition was found to have no merit and was dismissed, and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. ¶25

Shakti Lathar Vs Sumita and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the revision petition was found to have no merit and was dismissed, and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaint is liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the suit is hopelessly time-barred, the plaintiff-respondent No.1 having had knowledge of the Wills and of the mutations entered. +2 more

¶18

Court's answer

As stated in the plaint, the cause of action arose in July 2021 when defendant No.1 (respondent No.2 herein) met the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and disclosed regarding the Will left by Umed Singh; on the plaint averments the suit is not shown to be time-barred at the threshold.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

Unless it is apparent from the contents of the plaint that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 was aware of the execution of the Wills, the question of limitation can only be gone into at the time of trial and after the evidence has been led by the parties; the Trial Court was right in not deciding limitation at the Order VII Rule 11 stage.

¶24

Key takeaways

From a reading of the plaint it cannot be ascertained whether there was any compromise between the parties on the basis of which mutation was entered into, contrary to the contention urged on behalf of defendant No.7-petitioner.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil revision (CR-1656-2022 (O&M)) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by defendant No.7 against the order dated 12.11.2021 of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) dismissing his application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of a suit for declaration (co-ownership claimed; Wills dated 18.11.2004 and 14.02.2011 challenged) on the ground of limitation, i.e., that the plaintiff had knowledge of the Wills and of the mutations entered. Held: (i) on the plaint's own averments the cause of action arose in July 2021 when defendant No.1 disclosed the Will left by Umed Singh; (ii) whether any compromise preceded the entry of mutation cannot be ascertained from a reading of the plaint; and (iii) unless awareness of the execution of the Wills is apparent from the plaint itself, the question of limitation can only be gone into at the time of trial and after evidence has been led. Petition dismissed; pending applications, if any, disposed of. (Alka Sarin, J.)

¶1

275

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CR-1656-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision : 03.09.2025

SHAKTI LATHAR

.... Petitioner

VERSUS

SUMITA AND ORS .... Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

¶9

Present : Mr. Nilesh Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. K.B. Raheja, Advocate and Mr. Nitin Meel, Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶11

None for respondents No.2, 4 to 6 and 8.

¶12

Service of respondents No.3 and 7 dispensed with vide order dated 06.01.2023.

¶13

ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

¶14

The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order dated 12.11.2021 passed by the learned Adidtional Civil Judge (Senior Division) concerned whereby the application filed by the defendant No.7-petitioner herein under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was dismissed.

¶15

Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiffrespondent No.1 herein filed a suit for declaration to the extent that she was co-owner in joint possession of the properties, as per her share, as fully described in the headnote of the plaint. Wills dated 18.11.2004 and dated 14.02.2011 were also challenged. The defendant No.7-petitioner herein filed

¶16

AMAN JAIN 2025.09.04 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶17

CR-1656-2022 (O&M) -2-

¶18

an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was hopelessly time barred as the plaintiff-respondent No.1 had knowledge of the Wills and that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 also had knowledge of the mutations which were entered. Reply was filed to the said application. Vide the impugned order dated 12.11.2021 the application was dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition by the defendant No.7petitioner herein.

¶19

Learned counsel for the defendant No.7-petitioner would contend that at the time of entering of the mutations, a compromise was entered into between the parties and as such the suit itself is not maintainable. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that the Trial Court had wrongly dismissed the application holding that the issue of limitation cannot be gone into at the stage of deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

¶20

Per contra , learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent No.1 would contend that in para No.6 of the plaint it is categorically stated that it was in the first week of July 2021 that the defendant No.1 (respondent No.2 herein) met the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and disclosed that Umed Singh had executed a Will and on the basis of the said Will the defendants No.1, 3, 6 and 7 (respondents No.2, 4 and 7 and the petitioner herein) have become owners of the suit land. It is further the contention that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 is the widowed daughter-in-law of Umed Singh and thus has a right to inherit the property of Umed Singh. The defendants are the other sons of Umed Singh.

¶21

AMAN JAIN 2025.09.04 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶22

CR-1656-2022 (O&M) -3-

¶23

Heard.

¶24

In the present case the issue of limitation has been raised in the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. A perusal of the plaint reveals that the cause of action, as stated in the plaint, had arisen in July 2021 when the defendant No.1 (respondent No.2 herein) met the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and disclosed regarding the Will left by Umed Singh. From a reading of the plaint it cannot be ascertained as to whether there was any compromise between the parties on the basis of which mutation was entered into as has been argued by the learned counsel for defendant No.7-petitioner herein today. Unless it is apparent from the contents of the plaint that the plaintiffrespondent No.1 was aware of the execution of the Wills, the question of limitation can only be gone into at the time of trial and after the evidence has been led by the parties.

¶25

In view of the above, I find no merit in the present revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

¶26

03.09.2025 (ALKA SARIN) Aman Jain JUDGE

¶27

NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶28

AMAN JAIN 2025.09.04 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

Shakti Lathar v. Sumita and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakti Lathar v. Sumita and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manjit Singh Vs Jagroop Singh and Another

Jagdish through Lrs Vs Ami Lal and Ors.

Jai Singh and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Sunita and Ors. Vs Hanuman and Ors.

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Others

Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Raj Bala and Others