Punjab-Haryana High Court
Inderjit Singh Bajwa And Ors vs Satnam Singh Chahal on 1 April, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
CR No.4075 of 2023 -1- 2024:PHHC:042503
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
123 CR No.4075 of 2023 (O&M)
Reserved on : 14.03.2024
Date of Decision : 01.04.2024
Inderjit Singh Bajwa and Others ....Petitioners
VERSUS
Satnam Singh Chahal ....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Bikramjit Singh Baath, Advocate for the petitioners.
ALKA SARIN, J.
1. The present revision petition has been filed challenging the
order dated 21.04.2023 whereby the application filed by the defendant-
petitioners for dropping the proceedings in the civil suit as it was alleged that
no cause of action was made out, has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners submitted that the
plaintiff-respondent and defendant-petitioners are residents of United States
of America and the daughter of the plaintiff-respondent was a citizen of
USA. She got married to defendant-petitioner No.1 - Inderjit Singh - on
01.03.2008 and a child was born out of the said wedlock, who is also a USA
citizen. The marriage ended in a divorce in a Court in USA on 21.07.2017. It
is further the contention that various complaints were filed by the plaintiff-
respondent, which were found to be false. The present suit has been filed by
the father for recovery of Rs.10,00,000/- as damages for causing harassment,
humiliation and torture and lowering the reputation of the plaintiff-
integrity of this order/judgment
CR No.4075 of 2023 -2- 2024:PHHC:042503
respondent in the eyes of their friend circle, relatives and relations. The
defendant-petitioners have filed written statement and are contesting the suit.
During the pendency of the suit an application was filed by the defendant-
petitioners for dropping the proceedings as no cause of action had occurred
within the jurisdiction of the Trial Court. The plaintiff-respondent contested
the application and vide the impugned order the said application was
dismissed by the Trial Court. Hence, the present revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners has contended
that the Trial Court erred in dismissing the application and that whatever
happened took place in USA and there was, therefore, no occasion for the
plaintiff-respondent to file the suit in Jalandhar. It is further the contention
that the application ought to have been allowed as it is the duty of the Court
to see if the plaint is manifestly vexatious and merit-less, the same should be
rejected.
4. Heard.
5. In the present case the suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent
for recovery of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of damages to the reputation of
the plaintiff-respondent. The written statement was filed. Thereafter, an
application was filed for dropping the proceedings on the ground that no
cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Court. The Trial
Court after considering the application dismissed the same vide the
impugned order dated 21.04.2023. Para 7 of the plaint reads as under :
"7. That after filing of the complaint dated 5.8.17 the
defendants came to India on the occasion of
solemnization of second marriage of defendant no.1 and
during that period they all circulated the copies of the
integrity of this order/judgment
CR No.4075 of 2023 -3- 2024:PHHC:042503
complaint dated 5.8.17 to the known persons of the
plaintiff and his other family members with a motive to
defame the plaintiff in the eyes of general public, his
friends circle and in the circle of his relatives. There are
written imputation by all the defendants against the
plaintiff and contents of the said complaint are
false on the face of it, even SHO, P.S. NRI, Jalandhar
(City) made his report dated 17.10.2017 clearly hold
that the complaint dated 5.8.17 is liable to be dismissed
and accordingly he recommended the case to the high
officials vide order dated 26.10.17, DSP, NRI, Sub
Division Jalandhar agreed with the report of SHO vide
letter no.5926 dated 28.11.17, AIG, Police NRI Wing,
Jalandhar also agreed with the reports and forwarded
the repot to I.G. Police and I.G. Police also passed a
final order regarding dismissal of the complaint."
6. There is a specific averment therein that when the defendants
came to India for solemnization of the second marriage of defendant-
petitioner No.1 herein and during that period they circulated copies of the
complaint dated 05.08.2017 to all known with a motive to defame the
plaintiff-respondent. It has further been stated in the paragraph that the SHO,
Police Station NRI Jalandhar (City) had made his report dated 17.10.2017
clearly stating that the complaint dated 05.08.2017 was liable to be
dismissed and recommended the case to the higher authorities and that vide
letter dated 28.11.2017 the A.I.G. Police NRI Wing, Jalandhar also agreed
integrity of this order/judgment
CR No.4075 of 2023 -4- 2024:PHHC:042503
with the report and forwarded the report to I.G. Police and I.G. Police finally
passed the order dismissing the complaint.
7. It is trite that at the time of considering an application under
Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for rejection of a
plaint only the contents of the plaint are to be seen. Though the application
does not state anywhere that the same has been filed under Order VII Rule
11 CPC but infact the prayer is for rejection of the plaint and hence the
plaint can be rejected only if on a meaningful reading of the plaint no cause
of action is made out or jurisdiction does not lie. In the present case, on a
meaningful reading of the plaint, it cannot be said that no cause of action
occurred in Jalandhar or that the jurisdiction does not lie in Jalandhar. As
held by the Trial Court, the question of jurisdiction would be a matter of
evidence to be decided during the trial. No other point was argued.
8. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present
revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
( ALKA SARIN )
01.04.2024 JUDGE
jk
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
integrity of this order/judgment
