Punjab-Haryana High Court
Udmi Ram @ Udami Ram Etc vs Basanti Devi Thr Lr Rakesh Kumar And Ors on 18 March, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039373
SAO-87-2015(O&M) 2024:PHHC:039373
CR-4069-2016 (O&M) -1-
124 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision :18.03.2024
1. SAO-87-2015(O&M)
Udmi Ram @ Udami Ram and others ...Appellants
Vs.
Smt. Basanti Devi through LRs
Rakesh Kumar and others ...Respondents
2. CR-4069-2016 (O&M)
Smt. Basanti Devi (deceased) through LRs
Rakesh Kumar and another ...Appellants
Vs.
Udmi Ram @ Udami Ram and others ...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Nitin Goel, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Aman Bahri, Advocate
for the respondents.
***
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.(Oral)
1. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this order
shall dispose of SAO-87-2015 and CR-4069-2016. In SAO-87-2015, the
correctness of the First Appellate Court's order setting aside the trial Court's
order rejecting the plaint at the threshold is assailed.
2. In order to understand the controversy involved in the present
litigation, relevant facts in brief are required to be narrated.
3. Deity of Raghunathji is the owner of land located in village
Chhilaro, Tehsil Narnaul. There was dispute between two Mahants to manage
the property of deity. Maru Dass claiming to be the Mahant of the religious
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039373
SAO-87-2015(O&M) 2024:PHHC:039373
CR-4069-2016 (O&M) -2-
property filed a suit against Gordhan Dass disciple of Narsing Dass in 1963. He
claimed that Gordhan Dass is not a Mahant of the religious institution. The suit
was decreed on 02.02.1976. Subsequently, in between, there was exchange of
the property belonging to the religious institution by Gordhan Dass with
various persons. The appellant-Udmi Ram also exchanged 04 Kanals and 01
Marla land with Gordhan Dass. Gordhan Dass on the strength of the aforesaid
exchange, transferred land measuring 04 Kanals 01 Marla by virtue of two sale
deeds dated 31.07.1972 and 19.06.1974 in favour of Smt. Basanti Devi widow
of Murlidhar. Maru Dass filed a fresh suit for grant of decree of declaration
that the exchange deeds executed by Gordhan Dass were illegal, null and void.
The aforesaid suit was decreed in the year 1995. Subsequently, Udmi Ram and
another filed a suit for grant of decree of declaration on 14.06.1996. Maru Dass
did not implead Smt. Basanti Devi as defendant. The suit was filed against the
society and Gordhan Dass and was decreed on 31.08.2005. In execution of the
decree Udmi Ram and another wanted to take possession. At that stage Smt.
Basanti Devi filed the objection petition, however, that was dismissed by the
Executing Court summarily while observing that she is purchaser lis pendens.
The Court did not cull out the issues involved in the matter and permit the
parties to lead evidence. The dismissal of the objection petition filed by Smt.
Basanti Devi was upheld in the appeal by the First Appellate Court as well as
by the High Court in revision petition. Subsequently, Smt. Basanti Devi filed a
suit for grant of decree of declaration that she is the owner in possession of the
property by virtue of sale deeds executed on 31.07.1972 and 19.06.1974 with a
consequential relief of permanent injunction. Udmi Ram filed an application
under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure to reject the plaint,
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039373
SAO-87-2015(O&M) 2024:PHHC:039373
CR-4069-2016 (O&M) -3-
which was allowed. However, the First Appellate Court has held that it would
not be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the present case to reject
the present plaint at the threshold and therefore, set aside the order passed by
the trial Court while directing the trial Court to decide the suit within a period
of 6 months.
4. Heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and
with their able assistance perused the paper-book.
5. Learned counsel representing the appellants contends that Smt.
Basanti is a purchaser governed by rule of lis pendens and her objection
petition has already been dismissed. While relying upon the Order XXI Rule
101 of the Code of Civil Procedure, he contends that Smt. Basanti Devi's
separate suit is not maintainable.
6. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondent-Smt.
Basanti Devi contends that the sale deeds in favour of the Smt. Basant Devi are
not hit by rule of lis pendens and she has not been granted opportunity to prove
her case neither by deciding objection petition nor in this suit. He further
submits that the objection petition filed by Smt. Basanti Devi was not third
party objections as she was successor in interest of the judgment debtor. She
was purchaser of the suit property from deity through Gordhan Dass.
7. This Court has considered the submissions of learned counsel
representing the parties. Under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure,
the Court has enabling power to reject the plaint on various grounds listed
therein, which includes that the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to
be barred by law. In substance, learned counsel representing the appellants
submits that in view of provisions of Order XXI Rule 101, a separate suit at the
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039373
SAO-87-2015(O&M) 2024:PHHC:039373
CR-4069-2016 (O&M) -4-
behest of Smt. Basanti Devi is not maintainable. Per contra, it is the stand of
the defendant that Order XXI Rule 101 is not applicable as the objections were
not filed by Smt. Basanti Devi under Order XXI Rule 97 or 99 of the Code of
Civil Procedure.
8. The enabling power to reject the plaint is required to be exercised
only if the Court comes to a conclusion from reading of the plaint that the suit
filed by the plaintiff is barred by law. While deciding such application, the
Court is required to examine only the contents of the plaint and no other
document. In this case, the Court is required to examine the entire evidence,
which may be led by the parties. Moreover, it is evident that Smt. Basanti Devi
has never been given opportunity to prove that she is a bona fide purchaser.
Udmi Ram and another have already taken over the possession of the property.
In such circumstances, Udmi Ram and another are not going to suffer any loss
due to the pendency of the case. On the other hand, Smt. Basanti Devi is
required to be given an opportunity to prove her case. At the cost of repetition,
it may be noted that while deciding her objection petition, Smt. Basanti Devi
was not given any opportunity to lead evidence.
9. The applicability of Order XXI Rule 101 of the Code of Civil
Procedure is also debatable.
10. Keeping in view aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court
does not find it appropriate to interfere in the order passed by the First
Appellate Court. However, learned trial Court is directed to make sincere
endeavor for expeditious disposal of the suit as directed by the First Appellate
Court.
11. In CR-4069-2016, Smt. Basanti Devi's application for permission
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039373
SAO-87-2015(O&M) 2024:PHHC:039373
CR-4069-2016 (O&M) -5-
to amend the plaint in order to incorporate the relief of possession has been
dismissed. Smt. Basanti Devi claims that she has been dispossessed during the
pendency of the suit. In these facts and circumstances of the case, the trial
Court clearly erred in dismissing her application. She is required to be given
opportunity to prove that she has been dispossessed during the pendency of the
suit.
12. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, CR-4069-
2016 is allowed, whereas SAO-87-2015 shall stand dismissed.
(ANIL KSHETARPAL)
18.03.2024 JUDGE
neeraj Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No
5 of 5
