Disposed¶18

Laxman Dass Pahuja Alias Lakshman Dass Pahuja and Others v. Amir Singh and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Dec 2025CR/9527/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Order 7 Rule 11 CPC; rejection of plaint; Article 227 of the Constitution of India; expeditious disposal; delay/inaction by trial court; preliminary application touching maintainability of suit; Civil Judge (Junior Division) Gurugram; HUDA Sector-38 Gurugram suit CS-164-2022; direction to decide within one month; certified copy timeline; Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh; oral order; speaking; contentions left open; no merits decided.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram to decide the petitioners' application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC expeditiously, preferably within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, in accordance with law; pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. ¶18

Laxman Dass Pahuja Alias Lakshman Dass… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the civil revision petition under Article 227 seeking a direction for expeditious adjudication of the petitioners' application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC (pending since 2022) should be allowed.

¶14

Court's answer

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy between the parties, the Court held that the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC deserves to be decided at the earliest by the learned Trial Court, since prolonged pendency of a preliminary application going to the root of the maintainability of the suit defeats the object of expeditious disposal.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

A direction was issued to the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram to decide the application filed by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC expeditiously, preferably within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, in accordance with law.

¶18

Key takeaways

It was clarified that this Court has not examined the merits of the application or the suit, and all contentions of the parties are left open to be raised before the learned Trial Court.obiter¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by defendants in Civil Suit No. CS-164-2022 ('Amir Singh vs. Estate Officer, HUDA, Sector-38, Gurugram') complaining of the inaction of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram who, despite completion of pleadings and pendency of over three years, had not decided the defendants' application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed in 2022 seeking rejection of the plaint. Observing that prolonged pendency of a preliminary application going to the very root of the maintainability of the suit defeats the object of expeditious disposal and causes avoidable prejudice, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the High Court disposed of the revision petition directing the Trial Court to decide the Order 7 Rule 11 CPC application expeditiously, preferably within one month from receipt of a certified copy of the order, in accordance with law. All contentions of the parties were left open; pending applications stood disposed of.

¶1

CR-9527-2025 (O&M)

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

-.-

¶5

CR-9527-2025 (O&M) Decided on :- 23.12.2025

¶6

Laxman Dass P a huja @ Lakshman Dass Pahuj a and Others

¶7

....Petitioners

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Amir Singh an d Others

¶10

....Respondents

¶11

CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: M r . Dhruv Mittal, Advocate for th e petitioners.

¶12

-.-

¶13

MANDEEP PANNU J (Oral).

¶14

Th e present civil revision pet i tion under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the pet i tioners–defendants challenging the inaction and pr o longed adjournments by the le a rned Civil Judge (Junior Divisi o n), Gurugram, in C ivil Suit No. CS-164-2022 titl e d ‘Amir Singh vs. Estate Offi c er, HUDA, Secto r -38, Gurugram’, and seeki n g a direction for expeditious adjudication of t he application filed by the petit i oners under Order 7 Rule 11 C P C. 2. It i s not in dispute that the petitio n ers had filed an application u n der Order 7 Rule 11 CPC as far back as in the y ear 2022, seeking rejection of the plaint. Despite t he fact that pleadings stand co m pleted and the said application has been pending f o r more than three years, the lea r ned Trial Court has not decided the same till date a nd the matter continues to be a djourned from time to time. S u ch prolonged pen d ency of a preliminary applicati o n, which goes to the very roo t of the maintainabi l ity of the suit, defeats the objec t of expeditious disposal and ca u ses avoidable preju d ice to the parties.

¶15

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.23 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

CR-9527-2025 (O&M) - 2 -

¶17

In view of the limited grievance r aised and without expressing a ny opinion on the m erits of the controversy involv e d between the parties, this Cou r t is of the consider e d view that the application und e r Order 7 Rule 11 CPC deserves to be decided at th e earliest by the learned Trial C o urt.

¶18

Co n sequently, the present civil re v ision petition is disposed of wi t h a direction to th e learned Civil Judge (Junior D ivision), Gurugram, to decide the application file d by the petitioners under Or d er 7 Rule 11 CPC expeditiously, preferably with i n a period of one month from t h e date of receipt of a certified c o py of this order, in accordance with law.

¶19

It i s clarified that this Court ha s not examined the merits of the application or t h e suit, and all contentions of t h e parties are left open to be ra i sed before the learn e d Trial Court.

¶20

Pe n ding application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶21

December 23, 2025 (MANDEEP PANNU) tripti JUDGE Wheth e r speaking/non-speaking : Spea k ing Wheth e r reportable : Yes/ N o

¶22

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.23 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Laxman Dass Pahuja Alias Lakshman Dass Pahuja and Others v. Amir Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxman Dass Pahuja Alias Lakshman Dass Pahuja and Others v. Amir Singh 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

Nanhi and Ors. Vs Maha Singh and Ors.

Zile Singh Sine Deceased through Legal Representatives Vs State of Haryana and Others

Rohit Sharma Vs Abhishek Mahindra and Others

Gram Panchayat Vs Vaishno Dass

Dalbir Singh Vs Jagtar Singh

Subash Chand Vs Kamlesh Verma