Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vicky Sharma vs Randhir Singh And Another on 12 September, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:119666
C.R. No.4156 of 2022 (O&M) -1- 2023:PHHC:119666
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No.4156 of 2022 (O&M)
Date of Order:12.09.2023
Vicky Sharma
.Petitioner
Versus
Dr. Ranbir Singh and another ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Prateek Sodhi, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Puneet Sharma, Advocate
for the respondents.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J
1. The correctness of the trial court to reject the plaint at the
threshold in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been
challenged by the defendants in this revision petition.
2. The rejection of the plaint is sought on the ground that the
subsequent suit as same cause of action is barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC.
It has been projected that the parties in the previous round of litigation
entered into a settlement and the following cases were withdrawn:-
Sr.No. Case title and particulars Remarks
1. Dr. Ranbir Singh vs Ajit Singh and others Statement of withdrawal
dated May 3, 2018
(Annexure P/8).
Case No.42/17/CS/704/17 Order of withdrawal
dated May 3, 2018
(Annexure P/9)
2. Dr. Ranbir Singh vs Ajaypal Singh Order of withdrawal
Case No.102/17 dated May 3, 2018
(Annexure P/10)
3. Sahebzaad Singh Behniwal vs. Shri Ajit Order of withdrawal
Singh and others dated May 3, 2018
(Annexure P/11).
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:119666
C.R. No.4156 of 2022 (O&M) -2- 2023:PHHC:119666
Case No.3/17 Statement of withdrawal
dated May 3, 2018
(Annexure P/12).
4. Dr. Ranbir Singh vs. Subhash Sharma and Order of withdrawal
others dated May 3, 2018
Case No.27/2017 (Annexure P/13).
5. Dr. Ranbir Singh vs. Ajit Singh and Statement of withdrawal
another dated May 22, 2018
(Annexure P/14).
Case No.EP 2/2017 Order of withdrawal
dated May 22, 2018
(Annexure P/15)
6. Dr. Ranbir Singh vs. Punjab Kesari Order of withdrawal
Newspaper and others. dated May 3, 2018
(Annexure P/16)
Case No.20/2017 Order of withdrawal
dated May 3, 2018
(Annexure P/17).
3. It is submitted that the subject matter of the previous suit i.e.
the property is the same as is the property in the subsequent suit. Hence, the
suit is barred under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC. It is further contended
that the plaint does not disclose the cause of action and therefore the plaint is
liable to be rejected at the threshold.
4. As already noticed, before the trial court, the rejection of the
plaint was sought under Order II Rule 2 CPC which has not been pressed
before this court.
5. The learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the
petitioner (defendant in the suit) filed an application while specifically
referring to Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC.
6. Be that as it may
7. It may be noted here that a copy of the subsequent suit which is
now pending before the trial court has been annexed as Annexure P-1. In
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:119666
C.R. No.4156 of 2022 (O&M) -3- 2023:PHHC:119666
this suit, the plaintiff has sought a decree of declaration to the effect that the
plaintiff is a co-sharer in the joint possession to the extent of 23 kanals and 9
marlas being ½ share share of land measuring 46 kanals and 18 marlas and
the two exchange deeds dated 03.05.2018, allegedly executed in favour of
the defendants are illegal, null and void apart from being vitiated by duress
as signature and thumb impression of the plaintiff on these documents were
obtained by defendant no.2 when the plaintiff and his wife were in judicial
custody in a false case. Thus, the subject matter of the present suit is the two
exchange deeds only, that were executed on 03.05.2018.
8. At this stage, the learned counsel representing the petitioner
submits that there is only one exchange deed.
9. Be that as it may.
10. Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC bars institution of a fresh suit if the
subject matter of the suit was same in a previously instituted suit. The
argument of the learned counsel representing the petitioner that the subject
matter has a reference to the property is wholly erroneous. The subject
matter of the suit has a reference to the dispute involved in the suit and not
the property which is in dispute. Admittedly, in the previous suit filed by
the parties, the exchange deeds dated 03.05.2018 were not the subject matter
of the dispute. In fact, all the suits were withdrawn on 03.05.2018 and
22.05.2018.
11. As regards the objection with regard to the cause of action, it
may be noted that the plaintiff in paragraph 15 of the plaint has asserted as
under:-
"That the cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff
and against the defendants on 03.05.2018 when the
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:119666
C.R. No.4156 of 2022 (O&M) -4- 2023:PHHC:119666
defendant no.2 and his accomplices illegally and forcibly
under threat obtained signatures/thumb impressions of
the plaintiff, his wife and his son on the above noted two
alleged exchange deeds and compromise deed dated
03.05.2018. Secondly when the defendants refused to
accept the genuine request of the plaintiff to admit the
above noted documents to be null and void and admit the
genuine claim of the plaintiff over the suit land and
finally yesterday when the defendants finally refused to
admit genuine title/claim of the plaintiff over the suit land
and threatened to illegally and forcibly change the nature
of the suit land, raise construction on the specific
valuable portions of the suit land and also to
alienate/transfer the specific portions of the suit land by
carving out plots out the suit land to third parties without
getting the suit land partitioned from the court of
competent jurisdiction. The cause of action arises to the
plaintiff with every passing movement in view of the
constant threats/attempts of the defendants to change the
nature of the suit land and to alienate/transfer the
specific portions of the suit land by way of plots to third
persons without the partition of the suit land by court of
competent jurisdiction."
12. Moreover, the bundle of facts resulting in filing of the suit
constitutes the cause of action and the court is required to permit the parties
to lead evidence in order to arrive at a conclusion that the cause of action for
filing the suit exists or not?
13. The rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC can be
resorted to only if the court comes to a definite conclusion that the
subsequent suit is barred under any of the clauses mentioned in Order VII
Rule 11 CPC. In case of slight doubt, the court should desist from rejecting
the plaint lest the meritorious case is thrown out at the threshold.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:119666
C.R. No.4156 of 2022 (O&M) -5- 2023:PHHC:119666
14. The learned counsel representing the petitioner relies upon the
judgment passed in Ramisetty Venkatanna and another vs. Nasyam Jamal
Saheb and others, (Civil Appeal No.2717 of 2023, decided on 28.04.2023).
15. This court has carefully examined the judgment. In that case,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court came to a definite conclusion that the subsequent
suit is barred and a clever drafting shall not make the subsequent suit
permissible. However, as already noticed, in this case, the main challenge is
to the correctness of exchange deed which was not the subject matter of the
previous suit.
16. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and discussion, no ground
to interfere is made out.
17. Dismissed.
18. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
September 12, 2023 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
nt JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned :YES/NO
Whether reportable :YES/NO
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:119666
5 of 5
