Dismissed¶28

Gram Panchayat v. Jeet Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Apr 2026CR/2913/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gram Panchayat v. Jeet Singh, CR-2913-2026 (O&M), High Court of Punjab and Haryana, decided 06.04.2026 by Virinder Aggarwal J (Oral). Civil Revision under Article 227 against dismissal of Order VII Rule 11 CPC application for rejection of plaint in a permanent injunction suit. Held: plaint-averment test applies; defence and disputed facts (forged allotment receipt, Shamlat Deh character, ownership) are trial questions; no facial bar under Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 or Section 85 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act. Revision dismissed; no merits opinion expressed.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted to the petitioner; revision petition dismissed, upholding the trial Court's dismissal of the Order VII Rule 11 CPC application. ¶28

Gram Panchayat Vs Jeet Singh — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted to the petitioner; revision petition dismissed, upholding the trial Court's dismissal of the Order VII Rule 11 CPC application.

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court erred in dismissing the petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint in the suit for permanent injunction. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

In adjudicating an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court is strictly confined to the four corners of the averments made in the plaint; the defence of the defendant and any disputed questions of fact cannot be looked into at the preliminary stage.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

The substantive questions regarding the validity of the allotment and the true ownership of the Gram Panchayat are matters of trial that necessitate a full-scale adjudication and cannot be resolved on an application for rejection of the plaint.

¶28

Key takeaways

The plaint prima facie discloses a cause of action and does not appear to be barred by any law on its face; the application for rejection of the plaint was therefore rightly dismissed by the trial Court.ratio¶28
Finding no jurisdictional error or patent illegality in the impugned order, the revision petition stands dismissed.ratio¶28
The observations recorded in the judgment are confined solely to the adjudication of the revision and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the underlying dispute, nor prejudice either party's rights in the substantive trial.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision (Punjab and Haryana High Court, Virinder Aggarwal J, 06.04.2026) — Order VII Rule 11 CPC — rejection of plaint — scope of enquiry: the Court is strictly confined to the four corners of the averments in the plaint; the defence of the defendant and disputed questions of fact cannot be examined at the preliminary stage. Suit for permanent injunction by plaintiff alleging allotment of the suit land by the Gram Panchayat to his father in 1981 for Rs. 1,200/- and continuous possession since. Defendant's pleas that the allotment receipt was forged, that the property is Shamlat Deh per Jamabandi, that the Gram Panchayat is barred under Section 85 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act from alienating property without State approval, and that the suit is barred under Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 — held to be matters of trial requiring full-scale adjudication. Plaint disclosing a cause of action and not barred by any law on its face, the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bathinda rightly dismissed the rejection application by order dated 04.02.2026. Revision dismissed; observations confined to the revision and not an expression of opinion on the merits of the underlying dispute.

¶1

CR-2913-2026 (O&M)

¶2

-:1:-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

( 137 ) CR-2913-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 06.04.2026

GRAM PANCHAYAT

… Petitioner

Versus

JEET SINGH

... Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL

¶12

Present:Mr. Ripudaman Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner ( through video conferencing ).

¶13

¶14

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J . (Oral)

¶15

The petitioner has preferred the instant Civil Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court to assail the order dated 04.02.2026 (Annexure P- 5) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bathinda. By way of the impugned order, the learned trial Court dismissed the petitioner’s application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (‘CPC’ for short) for rejection of the plaint.

¶16

The underlying litigation pertains to a suit for permanent injunction instituted by the respondent-plaintiff against the petitionerGram Panchayat. The plaintiff seeks to restrain the Gram Panchayat from interfering with his peaceful possession of the suit property, asserting that the land was originally allotted to his father by the Gram Panchayat in 1981 for a consideration of 1,200/-. It is contended that since the delivery₹

¶17

GAURAV SOROT 2026.04.08 11:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CR-2913-2026 (O&M)

¶19

-:2:-

¶20

of possession, the plaintiff and his predecessor-in-interest have remained in exclusive and continuous occupation, having constructed a residential house, two shops, and a workshop equipped with an electricity connection. The plaintiff alleges that the present Sarpanch, fueled by political animosity, is attempting to forcibly dispossess him under the guise of the property being communal land.

¶21

Conversely, the petitioner-defendant sought the rejection of the plaint, contending that the alleged allotment receipt is a forged and fabricated document and that the suit property constitutes Shamlat Deh (Gair Mumkin waterworks and school) as per the revenue entries in the Jamabandi . The petitioner further asserted that the Gram Panchayat is statutory barred from alienating immovable property without State Government approval under Section 85 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, and that the suit suffers from procedural infirmities, including the failure to file the plaint in duplicate and the undervaluation of the property.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned order is legally infirm, asserting that the trial Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction. It was specifically argued that the suit property falls within the definition of Shamlat Deh , thereby attracting the statutory bar on Civil Court jurisdiction as contemplated under Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.

¶23

I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have meticulously perused the paper-book.

¶24

The learned trial Court has rightly observed that for the adjudication of an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of

¶25

GAURAV SOROT 2026.04.08 11:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

CR-2913-2026 (O&M)

¶27

-:3:-

¶28

Civil Procedure, the Court is strictly confined to the four corners of the averments made in the plaint. It is a settled canon of law that the defense of the defendant or any disputed questions of fact cannot be looked into at this preliminary stage. The trial Court correctly noted that the plaint was filed in duplicate and that the substantive questions regarding the validity of the allotment and the true ownership of the Gram Panchayat are matters of trial that necessitate a full-scale adjudication. As the plaint prima facie discloses a cause of action and does not appear to be barred by any law on its face, the application was rightly dismissed. Finding no jurisdictional error or patent illegality, the revision petition stands dismissed .

¶29

It is, however, clarified that the observations recorded hereinabove are confined solely to the adjudication of the present revision and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the underlying dispute. Nothing stated herein shall prejudice the rights, claims, or contentions of either party during the substantive trial or in any other proceeding.

¶30

In view of the fact that the principal matter stands finally adjudicated, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly. No further orders are required in this regard.

¶31

( VIRINDER AGGARWAL) 06.04.2026 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot

¶32

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

¶33

GAURAV SOROT 2026.04.08 11:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Gram Panchayat v. Jeet Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gram Panchayat v. Jeet Singh

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

Surjit Kaur through Hakam Singh Vs Narinder Kaur Alias Jaspal Kaur

Anikeet and Anr. Vs Somoti and Ors.

Jai Pal Singh Malik Vs Hy State and Others

Vijay Kumar and Others Vs Pardeep Kumar and Another

Lahri Singh Vs Surinder Vashisth

Jai Pal & Others Vs Bharta & Others