Satwant Singh (Deceased) Through ... vs Ranjit Singh And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 9284 P&H

                            CR No.3352 of 2023                    -1-                   2023:PHHC:083268

                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                              116                                         CR No.3352 of 2023
                                                                          Reserved on : 30.05.2023
                                                                          Date of Decision: 04.07.2023


                            Satwant Singh (deceased) through LRs                             ....Petitioners

                                                              VERSUS

                            Ranjit Singh and Others                                         ....Respondents

                            CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

                            Present :    Mr. Paritosh Vaid, Advocate for the petitioners.

                            ALKA SARIN, J.

1. The present revision petition has been filed challenging the

order dated 02.02.2023 whereby the application under Order VII Rule 11 of

the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by the defendant-petitioners herein

has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-

respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the

defendant-petitioners, their agents, servants, attorneys or anybody else acting

for and on their behalf from interfering in the peaceful and lawful possession

of the plaintiff-respondents and/or dispossessing the plaintiff-respondents

from the land measuring 06 acres 07 kanals 03 marlas having a frontage of

about 2 acres, as described in the plaint in detail, situated at Pathankot GT

Road, Village Noorpur, Tehsil and District Jalandhar. The defendant-

petitioners filed an application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII

Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the suit for permanent injunction was not

maintainable as the plaintiff-respondents are not in possession of the suit

property. Further ground taken was that the suit has been filed on the basis

of an unregistered agreement to sell dated 01.11.2017 and further that the JITENDER KUMAR 2023.07.04 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

Chandigarh
                             CR No.3352 of 2023                     -2-                   2023:PHHC:083268

plaintiff-respondents have not sought the relief of specific performance of

the agreement to sell and since an efficacious remedy was available to them

i.e. to file a suit for specific performance, as such, the suit was barred under

Order VII Rule 11(D) CPC by virtue of Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief

Act, 1963. A reply was filed to the said application by the plaintiff-

respondents and vide the impugned order the said application was dismissed.

Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners would contend

that since the plaintiff-respondents are not in possession and it is the

defendant-petitioners who are in possession of the suit property, hence, the

suit itself was not maintainable. It is further the argument that an

unregistered agreement to sell has been relied upon by the plaintiff-

respondents.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners.

5. It is trite that while deciding an application under Order VII

Rule 11 CPC only the averments of the plaint are to be seen. The plaintiff-

respondents have filed a suit for permanent injunction specifically averring

therein that they are in possession and have sought an injunction restraining

the defendant-petitioners from dispossessing them from the suit property. It

is further averred that the development plan had been got approved and

sanctioned qua the land measuring 06 acres 07 kanals 03 marlas as per

possession taken, however, the area has fallen short by more than 01 acre,

which materially affected the development of the colony and the entire

project has been adversely affected. The argument of counsel for the

defendant-petitioners that the defendant-petitioners are in possession and not

the plaintiff-respondents, cannot be gone into at this stage since there is a JITENDER KUMAR 2023.07.04 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

Chandigarh
                             CR No.3352 of 2023                  -3-                  2023:PHHC:083268

categoric averment in the plaint that the plaintiff-respondents are in

possession of the suit property. Further, the argument that an alternate

equally efficacious remedy is available to the plaintiff-respondents also

cannot be gone into at the stage of deciding the application under Order VII

Rule 11 CPC and would be a matter of evidence. The third argument

regarding the reliance on an unregistered agreement to sell in the suit also

cannot be a ground for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has been unable to convince this Court

that there is any ground made out under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection

of the plaint. No other argument has been raised by the counsel for the

defendant-petitioners.

6. In view of the above, the present revision petition, which is

wholly devoid of any merits, is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications,

if any, also stand disposed off.

                                                                                     ( ALKA SARIN )
                            04.07.2023                                                   JUDGE
                            jk

NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO

JITENDER KUMAR 2023.07.04 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

Chandigarh