Disposed¶30

Nikhil Singla v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Jul 2025CR/3453/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab and Haryana High Court; CR No.3453 of 2025 (O&M); Vikram Aggarwal J.; decision 01.07.2025; Article 227 revision; expedite trial / delay tactics / liberal adjournments; Order VII Rule 11 CPC rejection of plaint; Civil Suit No.1405/2020 State of Haryana v. Nikhil Singla; National Lok Adalat decree dated 08.12.2018 CS/1006/2018 Nirbhai Roadways; property 108 Railway Road Ambala Cantt; direction to decide within two months; notice dispensed with.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Court concerned to finally dispose of the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC expeditiously and preferably within two months; pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ¶30

Nikhil Singla Vs State of Haryana and Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether directions should be issued to the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Ambala to expeditiously decide the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in Civil Suit No.1405/2020, given the grievance that the respondents-plaintiffs are adopting delay tactics and obtaining liberal adjournments.

¶19

Court's answer

On the chronology drawn from the interlocutory orders (suit presented 19.10.2020; Order VII Rule 11 application moved 18.03.2021; reply filed 25.07.2022; application still awaiting arguments fixed for 03.07.2025), the decision in the application has been substantially delayed.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

The present revision petition is disposed of with a direction to the Court concerned to finally dispose of the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC expeditiously and preferably within a period of two months; pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶30

Key takeaways

There would be no necessity of issuing notice to the respondents, since in view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed no prejudice would be caused to them.obiter¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision (Article 227, Constitution of India) — Nikhil Singla v. State of Haryana and others — Petitioner sought directions to the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Ambala to expeditiously decide his application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed on 18.03.2021 in Civil Suit No.1405/2020 (State of Haryana and another v. Nikhil Singla etc.), a declaration suit challenging the award/decree dated 08.12.2018 of the National Lok Adalat, Ambala (CS/1006/2018, Nikhil Singla v. Nirbhai Roadways Pvt. Ltd) qua property No.108, Railway Road, Ambala Cantt. Interlocutory orders showed the suit was presented on 19.10.2020, the rejection-of-plaint application was moved on 18.03.2021, the plaintiffs' reply was filed only on 25.07.2022, and the application remained pending for arguments fixed for 03.07.2025. Holding the decision substantially delayed, the High Court dispensed with notice to the respondents (no prejudice likely) and disposed of the revision petition with a direction to finally dispose of the Order VII Rule 11 application expeditiously, preferably within two months; pending applications stood disposed of.

¶1

CR No.3453 of 2025 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

121

¶5

CR No.3453 of 2025 (O&M) Date of Decision :01.07.2025

Nikhil Singla

......Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

¶10

...... Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL

¶12

Present : Mr. S.K.S.Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (Oral):

¶14

By way of the instant revision petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner (Nikhil Singla) seeks issuance of directions to the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Ambala, to expeditiously decide the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed on 18.03.2021 in Civil Suit No.1405/2020 titled as State of Haryana and another Vs. Nikhil Singla etc.

¶15

The case set up in the petition is that respondent No.2 through its Executive Officer filed a suit for declaration (Annexure P-1) to the effect that the award/decree dated 08.12.2018, passed by the Presiding Officer-cum-Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), National Lok Adalat, Ambala in case No.CS/1006/2018 (Nikhil Singla Vs. Nirbhai Roadways Pvt. Ltd) was null & void, ineffective, illegal, arbitrary and obtained by defendant No.2 by misusing the process of law and concealment of facts qua the property bearing No.108, Railway Road, Ambala Cantt and was not binding upon the rights of plaintiffs and was, therefore, liable to be set aside. Consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants-petitioners from alienating, transferring, mortgaging

¶16

or changing the nature of the property in dispute in any manner was also sought. MANOJ KUMAR 2025.07.03 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶17

CR No.3453 of 2025 (O&M)

¶18

¶19

The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents-plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are adopting delay tactics and they have been granted liberal and easy adjournments which is apparent from the interlocutory orders. The chronology of events has been given in the petition and it has been stated that the respondents-plaintiffs No.1 and 2 have abused the process of law to their advantage and to the disadvantage of the petitioner by seeking adjournment after adjournment.

¶20

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that on account of the delay tactics being adopted by the respondents-plaintiffs No.1 and 2, the decision in the application for rejection of plaint has been unreasonably delayed. Learned counsel has referred to the interlocutory orders. Learned counsel has submitted that justice has been denied to the petitioner as plaintiffs-respondents No.1 and 2 had taken more than 1 year and 4 months to file the reply to the application under Order VII Rule 11 which is now fixed for 03.07.2025 for arguments, therefore, the unreasonable delay caused in the decision of the suit has gravely prejudiced the rights and interest of the petitioner.

¶22

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶23

There would be no necessity of issuing notice to the respondents, for, in view of the nature of the order that is proposed to be passed, no prejudice would be caused to them.

¶24

The interlocutory orders show that the suit was presented on 19.10.2020 and notice to the petitioner was issued for 12.11.2020. The petitioner-defendant No.1 put in appearance through his counsel on 12.11.2020

¶25

MANOJ KUMAR 2025.07.03 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶26

CR No.3453 of 2025 (O&M)

¶27

¶28

and the case was adjourned to 15.12.2020. An application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was moved on 18.03.2021 but the reply to the said application was filed on 25.07.2022. After that, the matter remained pending for arguments and decision of the said application and is now fixed for arguments in the application on 03.07.2025.

¶29

The aforesaid chronology of events shows that the decision in the application has been substantially delayed.

¶30

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, as have been noticed in the preceding paragraphs, the present revision petition is disposed of with a direction to the Court concerned to finally dispose of the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, expeditiously and preferably within a period of two months from today.

¶31

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶32

(VIKRAM AGGARWAL) JUDGE

¶33

01.07.2025

¶34

Manoj Bhutani

¶35

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶36

MANOJ KUMAR 2025.07.03 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Nikhil Singla v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nikhil Singla v. State of Haryana and Others

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

Jaspreet Singh Vs State of Punjab

Monika and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Naveen Vs State of Haryana

(O&M) Har Chand and Others Vs Shanti Karewa Karda

Rajbir and Ors. Vs Mayawati and Ors.

Rajinder Kumar and Anr. Vs Ved Parkash and Ors.