Disposed¶44

Mohan Sham Verma Alias Mohan Sham v. Jaideep Singh Bedi and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Jul 2025CR/588/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: preliminary issue of maintainability; same issue framed twice; onus of proof shifted to plaintiff; additional issue without reframing application; Order XIV Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC; reframing of issues; findings on all issues versus preliminary issue; Sathyanath & Anr. vs. Sarojamani 2022 (2) RCR (Civil) 957; suit for permanent injunction blank signed stamp papers and security cheques; ex parte respondents; civil revision CR-588-2023 (O&M); High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh; Alka Sarin J.; decision date 21.07.2025; orders dated 07.10.2022 and 12.01.2023 set aside / infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 07.10.2022 set aside; order dated 12.01.2023 rendered infructuous; Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. ¶44

Mohan Sham Verma Alias Mohan Sham Vs Jaideep Singh Bedi and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Order dated 07.10.2022 set aside; order dated 12.01.2023 rendered infructuous; Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court could frame the already-framed maintainability issue afresh as an additional preliminary issue casting the onus on the plaintiff-petitioner, without there being any application for reframing of the issues. +1 more

¶36

Court's answer

The same maintainability issue could not be framed twice: it had already been framed on 07.05.2018 with the onus on the defendant-respondents, and the fresh framing on 07.10.2022 was not a reframing but an additional issue framed as a preliminary issue with the onus reversed onto the plaintiff-petitioner.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

Adopting the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sathyanath & Anr. vs. Sarojamani, the Trial Court has to record findings on all issues rather than only deciding a preliminary issue.

¶38

Key takeaways

Both the impugned orders are unsustainable in law, and the order dated 07.10.2022 framing the preliminary issue is set aside.ratio¶43
Once the order dated 07.10.2022 was set aside, no further orders were required qua the order dated 12.01.2023, as the application on which that order was passed stands rendered infructuous; the Trial Court is to proceed in accordance with law.ratio¶43
Any observation made in the judgment shall not be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Alka Sarin, J.), CR-588-2023 (O&M), decided 21.07.2025 — Civil revision by plaintiff-petitioner against Trial Court orders dated 07.10.2022 (framing a preliminary issue on maintainability of the suit with onus cast on the plaintiff) and 12.01.2023 (dismissing his application under Order XIV Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC). The identical maintainability issue had already been framed on 07.05.2018 with the onus on the defendants; framing it afresh as an additional preliminary issue with the onus reversed onto the plaintiff, without any application for reframing of issues, was impermissible. Relying on Sathyanath & Anr. vs. Sarojamani, 2022 (2) RCR (Civil) 957 (SC), the Court held that the Trial Court has to record findings on all issues rather than only deciding a preliminary issue. Both orders were held unsustainable; the order dated 07.10.2022 was set aside and the order dated 12.01.2023 was rendered infructuous; the Trial Court was directed to proceed in accordance with law. Observations were expressly not to be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits. Revision petition disposed of in the above terms; respondents had been proceeded against ex parte despite service.

¶1

209

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CR-588-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision : 21.07.2025

¶4

Mohan Sham Verma alias Mohan Sham

¶5

... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Jaideep Singh Bedi and Others ... Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

¶9

Present : Mr. Ramnish Puri, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

None for the respondents.

¶11

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

¶12

Present revision petition has been filed by the plaintiffpetitioner challenging order dated 07.10.2022 whereby an issue qua the maintainability of the suit has been framed and the onus has been cast upon the plaintiff-petitioner and further challenging order 12.01.2023 vide which the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order XIV Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC has been dismissed.

¶13

None has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents, despite service hence they are accordingly proceeded against ex parte .

¶14

The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiffpetitioner herein filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant-respondents, their agents, attorneys etc. from handing over blank signed stamp papers and blank signed security cheques of the plaintiffpetitioner to any other person other than plaintiff-petitioner as also for

¶15

CR-588-2023

¶16

-2-

¶17

restraining the defendant-respondents from presenting to the Bank for encashment, blank signed security cheques of the plaintiff-petitioner. Separate written statements were filed by defendant-respondent No.1 and defendant-respondent Nos.2 and 3. Replication was also filed to both the written statements. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 07.05.2018, following issues were framed :

¶18

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP

¶19

Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not legally maintainable ? OPD

¶20

Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts from the Court ? OPD

¶21

Whether the suit of the plaintiff is without any cause of action ? OPD

¶22

Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD

¶23

Whether the present suit is bad for mis joinder of necessary parties ? OPD

¶24

Relief.

¶25

Thereafter, an application was filed by the defendant-

¶26

respondents (Annexure P-7) under Section 151 CPC for dismissal of the suit. On 07.10.2022 the Trial Court passed the following order :

¶27

CR-588-2023

¶28

-3-

¶29

“Today also reply to the application under section 151 CPC for dismissal of the suit has not been filed. I am of the view that sufficient delay has been caused in filing the reply to the said application. Accordingly the right to file reply stands struck off. Heard. In the application under section 151 CPC the defendant has prayed for dismissal of the suit on the ground that the present suit is legally not maintainable and the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit. Accordingly, I am of the view that a preliminary issue with regard to maintainability of the suit is required to be framed and adjudicated upon before proceeding further. Accordingly, the following preliminary issue is framed:-

¶30

1. Whether the present suit is legally maintainable? OPP

¶31

The plaintiff is directed to bring evidence if any on 21.10.2022 on the above issue.”

¶32

An application was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order XIV Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC which application was dismissed vide order dated 12.01.2023. Aggrieved by the same the present revision petition has been filed.

¶33

Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner would contend that without there being any application for reframing of the issues, an additional issue has been framed as a preliminary issue as to whether the suit was legally maintainable, and the onus has been cast upon the plaintiff-petitioner. However, vide order dated 07.05.2018 the issue framed was “ Whether the

¶34

CR-588-2023

¶35

-4-

¶36

suit of the plaintiffs is not legally maintainable ? OPD ” and the onus was cast upon the defendant-respondents. It is further the contention of learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner that once a party takes a stand that the suit was not maintainable, the onus to prove the same would be on the said party and not on the plaintiff. It is further the contention that in any case on an application under Section 151 CPC for dismissal of the suit, the present issue could not have been framed.

¶37

Heard.

¶38

In the present case the issues had already been framed vide order dated 07.05.2018. On 07.10.2022, a fresh issue has been framed i.e. “Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not legally maintainable ? OP P ” and the onus has been cast upon the plaintiff-petitioner. However, on 07.05.2018, the same issue was framed and the onus thereof was cast upon the defendant-respondents. It is not a case where the issue has been reframed for some reason. This is an additional issue which has been framed as a preliminary issue. It is not understandable as to how the same issue could be framed twice, once casting the onus on the defendant-respondents and in the second order, while framing the same issue as an additional issue, casting the onus on the plaintiff-petitioner. As per law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sathyanath & Anr. vs. Sarojamani [2022 (2) RCR (Civil) 957] , the Trial Court has to record findings on all issues rather than only deciding a preliminary issue.

¶39

Subsequently, after passing of order dated 07.10.2022, an application was filed by the plaintiff-petitioners herein under Order XIV

¶40

CR-588-2023

¶41

-5-

¶42

Rule 5 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for reframing of the issue, which was dismissed vide order dated 12.01.2023.

¶43

Both the orders are unsustainable in law. Accordingly the order dated 07.10.2022 is set aside. Since the order dated 07.10.2022 has been set aside, no further orders would be required to be passed qua the order dated 12.01.2023 as the application on which the order was passed stands rendered infructuous. The Trial Court shall now proceed in accordance with the law.

¶44

The present revision petition is disposed off in the above terms. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

¶45

It is made clear that any observation made herein shall not be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

¶46

21.07.2025 jk

¶47

( ALKA SARIN ) JUDGE

¶48

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

¶49

JITENDER KUMAR 2025.07.22 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Mohan Sham Verma Alias Mohan Sham v. Jaideep Singh Bedi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Sham Verma Alias Mohan Sham v. Jaideep Singh Bedi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manish and Ors. Vs Ram Lal

Dalwinder Kaur Vs Swaran Kaur and Others

Manmohan Singh and Another Vs Satish Kumar

Municipal Council, Sangrur Vs Harnoor Singh Manesh and Another

Ashok Kumar Bajaj and Another Vs Punjab Wakf Board Chandigarh

Jarnail Singh Vs Prem Singh