Dev Dutt v. Kishan Chand and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC22 May 2026CR/4344/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana High Court, CR-4344-2026 (O&M), decided 22.05.2026, Parmod Goyal J.: Article 227 direction for time-bound disposal of Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC rejection-of-plaint application in declaration and injunction suit; part-heard arguments since 24.01.2025; over 13 adjournments; trial court directed to decide within 15 days of next hearing; expeditious trial; Civil Judge (Junior Division) Hodal, Palwal; adjournment practice disapproved; revision disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Court of First Instance to decide the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC within 15 days from the next date of hearing fixed before it, granting only short justified adjournments, and to take steps for ensuring expeditious trial; pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. ¶¶19

Dev Dutt Vs Kishan Chand and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether directions should be issued to the trial court for expeditious disposal of the respondents-defendants' pending application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC for rejection of plaint in Civil Suit No.768 of 2024.

¶¶12

Court's answer

Arguments on the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC were heard partly on 24.01.2025 and, despite about one and a half years having passed, the application remains undecided.

¶¶17

Ratio / Principle

The manner in which adjournments were being granted in the trial court cannot be appreciated.

¶¶18

Key takeaways

The Court of First Instance is directed to decide the respondents-defendants' application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC within 15 days from the next date of hearing, allowing only short adjournments for justified reasons, and to take steps for ensuring expeditious trial.ratio¶¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by plaintiff Dev Dutt seeking expeditious disposal of the application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC moved by respondents-defendants (Kishan Chand Sharma and others) for rejection of plaint in Civil Suit No.768 of 2024, a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent and mandatory injunction filed on 20.12.2024 and pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hodal, Palwal, Haryana. Defendants appeared on 03.01.2025 and filed the rejection-of-plaint application; arguments thereon were heard partly on 24.01.2025, but more than 13 adjournments were sought by respondents-defendants and the application remained undecided for about one and a half years. Observing that the manner of granting adjournments could not be appreciated, Parmod Goyal, J. directed the Court of First Instance to decide the Order VII Rule 11 application within 15 days from the next date of hearing, permitting only short adjournments for justified reasons, and to take steps for ensuring expeditious trial. Petition disposed of accordingly (decided 22.05.2026).

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

¶2

AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

114

¶4

CR-4344-2026 (O&M) Date of decision:22.05.2026

¶5

DEV DUTT ...PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

KISHAN CHAND SHARMA AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL

¶9

Present: Ms. Yakshna Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Harnanak Singh, Advocate and Mr. Shahreyar Khan, Advocate for petitioner.

¶10

¶11

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

¶12

Present civil revision petition has been been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by petitioner-plaintiff for expeditious disposal of application preferred under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘ CPC ’) filed by respondentsdefendants for rejection of plaint in Civil Suit No.768 of 2024 filed by petitioner-plaintiff pending in the Court of Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hodal, Palwal, Haryana.

¶13

It is the case of petitioner-plaintiff that he had filed suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent and mandatory injunction on 20.12.2024. In pursuance of notices of suit, respondents-defendants had appeared on 03.01.2025 and had moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC qua rejection of plaint. It is the case of petitioner-plaintiff that arguments on said application were heard partly on 24.01.2025 and thereafter matter is being adjourned simply on the request of learned counsel for respondents-defendants without any cogent reason. It is asserted that

¶14

SUNIL CHANDER 2026.05.25 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

CR-4344-2026 (O&M) -2-

¶16

more than 13 adjournments have already been sought by respondentsdefendants but the arguments on abovesaid application have not been concluded and therefore suit preferred by petitioner-plaintiff is not proceeding further.

¶17

In present case, it is clearly made out that arguments on application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC were heard partly on 24.01.2025 and thereafter one and a half years have passed, however, the matter is still pending for consideration of application mentioned above.

¶18

The manner in which adjournments is being granted cannot be appreciated. Accordingly, learned Court of First Instance is directed to decide the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC preferred by respondents-defendants within 15 days from next date of hearing fixed before it. Learned Court of First Instance shall hear the arguments and in case it has to adjourn the case then only short adjournment shall be granted for a justified reason so that said application may be decided in next 15 days from next date of hearing before it. Learned Court of First Instance shall also take steps for ensuring expeditious trial.

¶19