Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jatin Bhagat vs Vandana Bhagat And Ors on 6 May, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
-1-
CR-2686-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
132 CR-2686-2024 (O&M)
Reserved on : 02.05.2024
Pronounced on : 06.05.2024
JATIN BHAGAT ....Petitioner
VERSUS
VANDANA BHAGAT AND OTHERS ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Sonal Anand, Advocate and
Ms. Surbhi Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
ALKA SARIN, J.
1. The present revision petition has been filed by the defendant-
petitioner challenging the order dated 03.04.2024 passed by the learned Civil
Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram whereby the application filed by the
defendant-petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was dismissed.
2. The brief facts relevant to the present case are that the plaintiff-
respondents filed a suit seeking declaration with consequential relief of
permanent injunction against the defendant-petitioner. The declaration
sought was that the plaintiff-respondents be declared owner of House No.26,
ground floor with basement, Akashneem Marg, DLF Phase-II, Gurugram
(hereinafter referred to as 'the suit property'). An application was filed by the
defendant-petitioner for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC
on the ground that the suit itself was barred by Section 4(1) of the
Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred
integrity of this judgment/order.
CR-2686-2024
to as the 'Benami Transactions Act' for the sake of brevity). A reply was
filed to the said application. The Trial Court vide order impugned dated
03.04.2024 dismissed the said application.
3. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner would contend
that the plea of the plaintiff-respondents is that the finances for purchase of
the suit property were provided for by them, however, the suit property was
registered in the name of the defendant-petitioner and that this would
amount to a benami transaction and under the provisions of Section 4 of the
Benami Transactions Act, the suit itself would be barred.
4. Notice of motion.
5. Mr. Bhupinder Ghai, Advocate appears and accepts notice on
behalf of the caveator/plaintiff-respondents. Learned counsel would contend
that whether the suit is barred by the provisions of Section 4 of the Benami
Transactions Act would be a matter of evidence inasmuch as certain
exceptions have been carved out under the said provision. It is further the
contention that it will be a matter of evidence as to whether the provisions of
the Benami Transactions Act are even applicable in the present case.
6. Heard.
7. Before adverting to the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the parties, Section 4 of the Benami Transactions Act may be
noticed, which is reproduced as under :
"4. Prohibition of the right to recover property held
benami - (1) No suits, claim or action to enforce any
integrity of this judgment/order.
CR-2686-2024
right in respect of any property held benami against the
person shall lie by or on behalf of a person claiming to
be the real owner of such property.
(2) No defence based on any right in respect of any
property held benami, whether against the person in
whose name the property is held or against any other
person, shall be allowed in any suit, claim or action by or
on behalf of a person claiming to be the real owner of
such property."
It is trite that at the stage of dealing with an application under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC only the contents of the plaint are to be seen. On a
meaningful reading of the plaint, it cannot be ascertained as to whether the
matter would be covered under Section 4 of the Benami Transactions Act.
The question whether the suit is barred under Section 4 of the Benami
Transactions Act would be a matter of trial and would be considered after
the evidence has been led. On a meaningful reading of the plaint it cannot be
said that the suit is barred under Section 4 of the Benami Transactions Act.
For a suit to be dismissed at the outset under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the
plaint has to be such that on a meaningful reading of it, it without any doubt
or dispute, shows that the same is barred by any law in force.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pawan Kumar V/s
Babulal (since deceased) through LRs & Ors. [2019 (2) RCR (Civil) 744]
has held as under :
integrity of this judgment/order.
CR-2686-2024
"3. In the present case, the controversy has arisen in an
application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. Whether the
matter comes within the purview of Section 4(3) of the
Act is an aspect which must be gone into on the strength
of the evidence on record. Going by the averments in the
Plaint, the question whether the plea raised by the
appellant is barred under Section 4 of the Act or not
could not have been the subject matter of assessment at
the stage when application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC
was taken up for consideration. The matter required
fuller and final consideration after the evidence was led
by the parties. It cannot be said that the plea of the
appellant as raised on the face of it, was barred under
the Act. The approach must be to proceed on a demurrer
and see whether accepting the averments in the plaint the
suit is barred by any law or not. We may quote the
following observations of this Court in Popat and
Kotecha Property vs. State Bank of India Staff
Association, 2005 (4) RCR (Civil) 334; (2005) 7 SCC
10. Clause (d) of Order 7, Rule 7 speaks of suit, as
appears from the statement in the plaint to be
barred by any law. Disputed questions cannot be
integrity of this judgment/order.
CR-2686-2024
decided at the time of considering an application
filed under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. Clause (d) of
Rule 11 Order 7 applies in those cases only where
the statement made by the plaintiff in the plaint,
without any doubt or dispute shows that the suit is
barred by any law in force."
9. 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.
06.05.2024 (ALKA SARIN)
Aman Jain JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
integrity of this judgment/order.
