Punjab-Haryana High Court

Naveen Garg vs Dharam @ Dharambir on 6 May, 2024

Author: Anil Kshetarpal

Bench: Anil Kshetarpal

                                  Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062829




CR-3364-2023(O&M)


                                                                            1
138        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH


                                          Date of decision : 06.05.2024

1.                                              CR-3364-2023(O&M)

Naveen Garg                                                 ...Petitioner

                                          Vs.

Dharam @ Dharambir                                          ...Respondent

2.                                              CR-3405-2023(O&M)

Naveen Garg                                                 ...Petitioner

                                          Vs.

Jaswant @ Musta                                             ...Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

Present:    Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            None for the respondent.

                  ***
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. (Oral)

1. With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the two

connected revision petitions shall stand disposed of with this common order.

2. The petitioners in both the revision petitions are defendants in a

suit for damages on account of malicious prosecution. They filed two separate

applications under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure to reject

the plaint on the ground that the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is

pending. The trial Court has dismissed the application.

4. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that against

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062829

CR-3364-2023(O&M)

the judgment of acquittal, criminal appeal is pending in which notice has been

issued.

5. This Court has considered the submission of the learned counsel

for the petitioner.

6. Order VII Rule 11 enables the Court to reject the plaint only on

extremely limited grounds. The plaintiff is yet to be granted opportunity to

prove his case. Mere pendency of the appeal against the judgment of acquittal

of the plaintiff shall not be sufficient to reject the plaint.

7. Hence, no ground to interfere is made out.

8. The revision petitions are dismissed.




                                                        (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
06.05.2024                                                   JUDGE
neeraj
              Whether speaking/reasoned :         Yes            No
              Whether Reportable :                Yes            No




                                       2 of 2