Dismissed¶¶36

Jagan Nath Since Deceased through Lrs v. Sushank and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC13 May 2025CR/2228/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh; CR-2228-2022 (O&M); decided 13.05.2025 by Anil Kshetarpal, J. Revision against First Appellate Court order reversing trial Court's allowance of plaint-rejection application. Keywords: Order VII Rule 11 CPC; rejection of plaint; limitation a mixed question of law and fact; plaint cannot be rejected in part; locus standi at threshold; proviso to Section 34 Specific Relief Act 1963; declaratory suit by co-owner; suit within three years of attaining majority (majority 11.09.2010, suit 01.11.2012); challenge to judgment and decree dated 26.02.1983 and sale deed dated 18.08.1999; revision petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioner; all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also disposed of. ¶¶36

Jagan Nath Since Deceased through Lrs Vs… — Specific Performance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the petitioner; all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also disposed of.

¶¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the suit is filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. +2 more

¶¶14

Court's answer

The question of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts; hence it is not appropriate to reject the plaint at the threshold on the ground of limitation.

¶¶27

Ratio / Principle

The plaintiff attained the age of majority on 11.09.2010 and the suit was filed on 01.11.2012, which weighs against rejection of the plaint on limitation at the threshold.

¶¶27

Key takeaways

It is well settled that a plaint cannot be rejected in part.ratio¶¶28
Since the plaintiff, born in 1992, also challenges the sale deed dated 18.08.1999 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.8 as without legal necessity, it is not appropriate at this stage to record any final finding on the locus standi of the plaintiff to maintain the suit.ratio¶¶32
The proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 mandates rejection only where a plaintiff entitled to further relief fails to pray for it; here the plaintiff claims to be a co-owner of the property and has accordingly filed a suit for declaration, so the proviso does not bar the suit.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil revision — rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Defendants sought rejection of the plaint on two grounds: (i) the suit was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation, and (ii) the plaintiff had no cause of action. The trial Court had allowed the application, but the First Appellate Court reversed it. Held, dismissing the revision petition: (a) limitation is a mixed question of law and facts and cannot be decided at the threshold, especially as the plaintiff attained majority on 11.09.2010 and filed the suit on 01.11.2012 challenging a judgment and decree dated 26.02.1983 and a sale deed dated 18.08.1999; (b) a plaint cannot be rejected in part, and since the plaintiff (born 1992) also impugns the sale deed as without legal necessity, no final finding on his locus standi should be recorded at this stage; (c) the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 does not bar the suit because the plaintiff, claiming to be a co-owner, has filed a suit for declaration.

¶1

CR-2228-2022 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

126 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CR-2228-2022 (O&M) Date of decision : 13.05.2025

¶5

Jagan Nath (Deceased) through LRs ...Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Sushank and others ...Respondents

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

¶9

Present: Mr. Sanjay Majithia, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sumit Sinha, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

¶10

Mr. Rajnish Gupta, Advocate Mr. Sachin, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2.

¶11

¶12

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. (Oral)

¶13

The defendants assails the correctness of the First Appellate Court's order which in turn has reversed that of the trial Court. The defendant prayed for rejection of the plaint on the following two grounds:-

¶14

I. The suit is filed beyond the prescribed period of

¶15

limitation.

¶16

II. The plaintiff does not have cause of action.

¶17

The trial Court allowed the application, which has been reversed

¶18

by the First Appellate Court.

¶19

Learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner(s) submits that the plaintiff was born on 12.09.1992, whereas, he is challenging the judgment and decree dated 26.02.1983. He submits that the plaintiff has no locus to file

¶20

NEERAJ 2025.05.15 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CR-2228-2022 (O&M)

¶22

-2-

¶23

the suit. Moreover, the suit was filed on 01.11.2012, whereas, the limitation of challenging the judgment and decree is three years. It is further submitted that the plaintiff has only sought decree of declaration without seeking possession, hence, the suit is not maintainable in view of the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

¶24

Learned counsel representing the respondents that the plaintiff has also challenged the correctness of sale deed executed on 18.08.1999 by filing a suit on 01.11.2012, whereas, the plaintiff attained the age of majority on 11.09.2010. Hence, the suit was filed within a period of three years after attaining the age of majority. He further submits that the plaintiff has disclosed the cause of action for filing the suit in para 26 of the plaint.

¶25

This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel representing the parties.

¶26

Under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the plaint can be rejected only on limited grounds. There is no merit in the revision petition for the following reasons:-

¶27

I. The question of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts. Hence, it is not appropriate to reject the plaint at the threshold, particularly, when the plaintiff attained the age of majority on 11.09.2010, whereas, the suit was filed on 01.11.2012.

¶28

II. It is well settled that a plaint cannot be rejected in part. The plaintiff has also claimed that the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.8 on 18.08.1999

¶29

NEERAJ 2025.05.15 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

CR-2228-2022 (O&M)

¶31

-3-

¶32

is without legal necessity. Whereas, the plaintiff was born in 1992, hence, at this stage, it is not appropriate to record any final finding with regard to locus standi of the plaintiff to maintain the suit.

¶33

Proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, provides that if the plaintiff is entitled to any further relief but fails to pray for the same, his plaint is required to be rejected. In this case, the plaintiff is claiming to be co-owner of the property. Hence, he has filed a suit for declaration.

¶34