Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tejpal vs Satpal on 5 December, 2023
2023:PHHC:155437
C. R. No. 7306 of 2023 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Sr. No.124
Case No. : C. R. No. 7306 of 2023
Date of Decision : December 05, 2023
Tejpal .... Petitioner
vs.
Satpal .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURBIR SINGH.
* * *
Present : Ms. Savita Devi, Advocate
for the petitioner.
* * *
GURBIR SINGH, J. :
1. Challenge in this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India is to the order dated 03.11.2023 (Annexure P-1),
passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jind (hereinafter referred to as
- the Lower Appellate Court) and also to the order dated 17.02.2023
(Annexure P-8), passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Safidon (hereinafter referred to as - the Trial Court), whereby application
filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been
dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case in hand, as culled out from the paper-
book, are that respondent/plaintiff filed suit against the petitioner/defendant
for recovery of Rs.32,50,000/- on the ground that the petitioner/defendant
borrowed Rs.12,50,000/- from the plaintiff on 01.05.2016 and also a sum of
Rs.20,00,000/- on 15.01.2017, by making a writing in his own hand in the
2023:PHHC:155437
bahi of respondent/plaintiff. However, later on, the respondent/plaintiff
failed to produce the original bahi to show the entries in the hand of
defendant/petitioner and therefore, the defendant/petitioner filed application
under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint, which has been dismissed
by the Trial Court as well as the Lower Appellate Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant has submitted that
respondent/plaintiff failed to show the payment of interest from 01.05.2016
to 15.01.2017. The suit has been filed beyond limitation. The plaintiff/
respondent had no cause of action to file the suit qua confirmation of total
borrowed amount of Rs.32,50,000/- on dated 15.01.2017. The plaintiff/
respondent has not stated the precise amount of the claim as per Clause (ix)
of Sr. No.1 of Part-C of Chapter 1 of High Court Rules and Orders. The
plaintiff, by cleverly drafting the plaint, has wrongly taken the plea of
confirmation of balance in bahi, whereas no such writing is there in
existence. Therefore, suit of the plaintiff/respondent was liable to be
rejected.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/respondent has further argued
that an application dated 04.05.2022 was moved asking the plaintiff/
respondent to produce the original bahi. Initially, stand of the plaintiff/
respondent in the suit was that a copy of bahi entry was annexed and
original bahi was in his possession but when application was moved for
production of original bahi, then counsel for the plaintiff/respondent took
stand in the Trial Court that the plaintiff was not having any bahi entry dated
15.01.2017, where the defendant had specifically confirmed the liability of
2023:PHHC:155437
Rs.32,50,000/- although there is one entry dated 15.01.2017, a copy of
which has already been appended with the plaint. It has thus been
contended that the suit is time barred and barred by limitation. Reliance in
support of the contentions has been placed on a judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case Ramisetty Venkatanna and another vs. Nasyam
Jamal Saheb and others - Civil Appeal No.2717 of 2023.
5. I have heard submissions made by learned counsel for the
petitioner and perused the case file.
6. Order 7 Rule 11 CPC reads as under :-
"11. Rejection of plaint - The plaint shall be
rejected in the following cases -
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of
action;
(b) where the relief claimed is under-
valued, and the plaintiff, on being
required by the Court to so correct
the valuation within a time to be fixed
by the Court, fails to do so;
(c) where the relief claimed is properly
valued, but the plaint is written upon
paper insufficiently stamped, and the
plaintiff, on being required by the to
supply the requisite stamp-paper
within a time to be fixed by the Court,
fails to do so;
(d) where the suit appears from the
statement in the plaint to be barred by
any law;
(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;
2023:PHHC:155437
(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply
with the provisions of rule 9;
[Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the
correction of the valuation or supplying of the
requisite stamp-papers shall not be extended
unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is
satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any
cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the
valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-papers,
as the case may be, within the time fixed by the
Court and that refusal to extend such time would
cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.]
7. It is well settled that at the time of disposing of an application
under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only averments in the plaint are to be seen and
plaint is liable to be rejected as a whole and not partly. The plaintiff has
filed the suit for recovery of Rs.32,50,000/-, on which court fee of
Rs.1,45,000/- has been paid. The suit was filed on 13.01.2020. Para nos.4
and 5 of the plaint are as under :-
"4. That the defendant was in need of money for
his profession of property dealing, in
election of Sarpanch and for construction of
his house, so the defendant borrowed an
amount of Rs.12,50,000/- in cash on interest
@ 2% per month from the plaintiff on dated
01.05.2016 and the defendant made an entry
in his own hand in this regard in token of
payment received by him, in the Bahi of
plaintiff.
5. That thereafter on dated 15.01.2017, after
understanding the account, the defendant
2023:PHHC:155437
paid the interest from 01.05.2016 to
15.01.2017 of above said amount of
Rs.12,50,000/- to the plaintiff and also
borrowed Rs.20,00,000/- more, in cash @
2% per month after confirmation of balance
of Rs.32,50,000/- i.e. amount borrowed on
01.05.2016 and 15.01.2017 respectively. It
is pertinent to mention here that the
defendant had borrowed money several
times from the plaintiff from 04.10.2012 till
15.01.2017 and all the writing in token of
receipt is in the hand of defendant, in the
bahi of the plaintiff and defendant had paid
the remaining amount from time to time
prior to 01.05.2016."
8. As per version in the plaint, the defendant/petitioner also
borrowed a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- on 15.01.2017. So, it cannot be said that
the entire suit is barred by limitation. The suit is not prima facie barred by
limitation and cause of action has prima facie accrued in favour of plaintiff
to file the suit. The case of Ramisetty Venkatanna (supra) is
distinguishable on facts and is of no help to the petitioner. It is a question of
evidence whether the defendant signed the original bahi or not and petitioner
would definitely get opportunity to rebut the evidence to be produced by
plaintiff. Since prima facie suit is within limitation with regard to part of the
claim and plaint disclosed the cause of action, so, plaint cannot be rejected.
9. The Courts below have rightly held so that the plaint cannot be
rejected. I find no error in the orders passed by the Courts below.
Accordingly, the present revision petition is without any merit and the same
2023:PHHC:155437
is, therefore, dismissed.
10. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of along with
this judgment.
December 05, 2023 (GURBIR SINGH)
monika JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No.
Whether reportable ? Yes/No.
