Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sanjay Fotedar vs Ratan Rani Fotedar And Anr on 8 May, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046308
2024:PHHC:046308
C. R. No.3046 of 2023
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Sr. No.379(2)
Case No. : C. R. No.3046 of 2023
Date of Decision : April 04, 2024
Sanjay Fotedar .... Petitioner
vs.
Smt. Rattan Rani Fotedar and another .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURBIR SINGH.
* * *
Present : Mr. Sandeep Vermani, Advocate
with Mr. Aditya Vermani, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. V. K. Shali, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Kuljit Singh, Advocate
for the respondents (through Video Conferencing).
* * *
GURBIR SINGH, J. :
1. Challenge in this petition, filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, is to the order dated 13.03.2023 (Annexure P-4),
passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram (hereinafter
referred to as - the Trial Court), whereby application moved by the
petitioner (hereinafter referred to as - defendant no.2), under Order 7 Rule
11 CPC, for rejection of plaint, has been dismissed.
2. The facts in brief, which are necessary for adjudicating the present
petition, are that respondent no.1 - Rattan Rani (hereinafter referred to as -
the plaintiff) filed a suit for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief
Act, 1963 against petitioner/defendant no.2 and Dr. Jitender Fotedar -
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046308
2024:PHHC:046308
respondent no.2/defendant no.1, in which relief to restore the possession of
master bedroom with attached dressing and washroom on the first floor of
property No.C-2/72-73, Lord Krishna Enclave, Sushant Lok-1, Gurugram
(for short - suit property) has been sought. It has been contended that the
suit property was under her possession and the same was forcibly occupied
by the defendants.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the aforesaid
suit was filed by the plaintiff through her daughter being her authorized
representative and guardian namely Mrs. Rashmi Shali, who has also
verified the plaint. The averments in the plaint are contradictory and
inconsistent. No 'Power of Attorney' has been placed on record. No
application for seeking permission to appoint guardian/next friend has been
filed. The mandate of sub-rule 3 and 4 of Rule 3 under Order XXXII CPC
have not been complied with.
4. Learned senior counsel for the respondent no.1/plaintiff, who has
appeared through Video Conferencing, has submitted that for deciding an
application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, for rejection of plaint, only
averments in the plaint are to be seen. The suit has been filed for restoration
of possession because the plaintiff was dispossessed from a portion of the
house under her occupation. She is about 80 years old and has filed the suit
against her sons. She is not able to protect her rights, so, she has filed the
suit through her daughter.
5. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and
perused the case file.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046308
2024:PHHC:046308
6. The suit has been filed by a mother against her two sons for
restoration of possession of a house, from where she has been dispossessed
and where she has been residing with her husband before he expired. The
suit is simply for restoration of possession and same is based on specific
cause of action. The suit is not barred under any law. It is neither under-
valued nor insufficiently stamped. If any contradictory plea is taken by the
plaintiff, that would be a question of trial and the plaint cannot be rejected
on this ground alone. The non-placing of 'Power of Attorney', at the most,
can be considered as a curable defect but cannot be said to be a ground to
reject the plaint.
7. In view of what has been discussed above, the present revision
petition is without any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.
8. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of along with
this judgment.
April 04, 2024 (GURBIR SINGH)
monika/renu JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No.
Whether reportable ? Yes/No.
3 of 3
