Ajit Singh Vs Sher Singh and Ors.

Th e petitioner herein is one of t h e defendants in Civil Suit No. C S- 688 of 2014 t i tled “Sher Singh vs. Giriraj a n d another” pending before the learned Civil Ju d ge (Junior Division), Pataudi. H e is aggrieved of the order dated 03.10.2016 pa s sed by the learned trial Court, whereby the application filed by the petitioner a s well as a separate applicatio n filed by the co-defendant un d er Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Proced u re for rejection of the plaint w as dismissed.

¶13

A b rief reference to the facts is ne c essary for disposal of the pres e nt revision petiti o n. Respondent No.1-plaintiff Sher Singh and defendants Giriraj and Ajit Singh are real brothers. The plaintif f instituted the above-mentioned suit seeking a d ecree for partition and perm a nent injunction in respect of the property described in paragraph No.1 of the p l aint. It has been pleaded that the parties were e arlier involved in a civil suit bearing No.435 of 1994, wh i ch culminated in a compromise decree date d 22.10.1994. As per the s a id compromise, c e rtain portions of the propert y were demarcated amongst the parties, where a s one portion of the prope r ty was intentionally kept joi n t. According to t h e plaintiff, the defendants are now trying to encroach upon the

¶14

JITEN SHARMA 2026.03.17 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

Page N: 1 of 3

¶16

CR-476 of 2017

¶17

said joint prop e rty and are attempting to rai s e construction thereon with the intention to a p propriate the share of the plaintiff, which compelled him to institute the pr e sent suit seeking partition of t h e joint portion and consequen t ial relief of injunction, claiming 1/3rd share therei n .

¶18

Th e defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejecti o n of the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by the principle of re s judicata , contending that the matter had already been settled between the parties by virtue of the judgm e nt and decree dated 22.10.1994 passed on the b asis of compromise in the earli e r suit.

¶19

Th e learned trial Court, after hear i ng the parties, dismissed the s a id application vide impugned order dated 03. 1 0.2016, holding that the pla i nt disclosed a ca u se of action and that the bar of res judicata could not be adjudicated at t hat stage.

¶20

Le a rned counsel for the petitione r has contended before this Co u rt that once the r ights of the parties had alrea d y been determined in the earl i er suit by way of compromise decree dated 22. 1 0.1994, the present suit was n ot maintainable and the plaint deserved to be r ejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

¶21

I h ave considered the submissi o ns of learned counsel for the petitioner and h ave perused the record.

¶22

It is well settled that while consi d ering an application under Or d er VII Rule 11 CP C , the Court is required to examine only the averments contained in the plaint and the documents relied upon b y the plaintiff. The defence taken by the defend a nts in the written statement or in the application cannot be looked into at t hat stage. The plaint can be r e jected only if it is apparent fr o m the statements made in the plaint itself that th e suit is barred by any law.

¶23

A perusal of the plaint shows t hat the plaintiff has specific a lly pleaded that al t hough certain portions of the p roperty were separated between the parties by v irtue of the compromise decr e e dated 22.10.1994, a portion of the property w as kept joint. It is further alle g ed that the defendants are n o w

¶24

JITEN SHARMA 2026.03.17 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

Page N: 2 of 3

¶26

CR-476 of 2017

¶27

attempting to e ncroach upon the said joint p ortion and to raise constructi o n thereon, there b y interfering with the rights of t he plaintiff. On the basis of th e se averments, the plaintiff has sought partition o f the joint property claiming h is 1/3rd share th e rein.

¶28

Fr o m the above pleadings, it can n ot be said that the suit is barred by the principl e of res judicata . The earlier dec r ee, as pleaded in the plaint its e lf, shows that th e property in dispute was intentionally kept joint between the parties. The pr e sent suit is founded on a subse q uent cause of action arising fr o m the alleged at t empt of the defendants to e n croach upon the joint proper t y. Whether the claim of the plaintiff is ultimatel y sustainable or not is a matter to be adjudicated upon evidence during trial.

¶29

At the stage of deciding an applic a tion under Order VII Rule 11 C P C, the Court is n ot required to examine the c orrectness or otherwise of the allegations ma d e in the plaint. If the plaint di s closes a cause of action and the bar of law is n ot apparent on the face of the plaint, the plaint cannot be rejected.

¶30

In view of the above discussion , this Court finds no illegality or perversity in t he order passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the application for r ejection of the plaint.

¶31

Consequently, the present revisio n petition being devoid of meri t is dismissed.

¶32

(DEEPAK GUPTA) 16.03.2026 JUDGE Jiten Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶33

JITEN SHARMA 2026.03.17 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶34

Page N: 3 of 3

Ajit Singh v. Sher Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajit Singh v. Sher Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinay Malhotra Vs Malkit Ram @ Jeet Ram

Bimla Devi @Bimla Bansal Vs the Bathinda Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. and Others

Jagdish Singh Rehal Vs Awtar Singh Rehal and Others

Deepak Vs Ranjeet and Ors.

Baba Gopal Dass Chela Surti Dass Since Deceased through Gaddi Nasheen Mahant Ram Niwas Das Ji Vs Ghat Talab Kaulan Wala

(O&M)Gurnam Singh and Ors. Vs Bal Kaur and Ors.