Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagbir Singh vs Roshni And Ors on 28 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:013397
260 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR-541-20222
DECIDED ON: 28.01.2025
.01.2025
JAGBIR SINGH
PETITIONER
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
ROSHNI AND OTHERS
.....RESPONDENTS
S
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL.
Present: Mr. Govind Chauhan, Advocate
for the petitioner.
petitioner
Mr. Lekh Raj Nandal, Advocate
for respondent No.3.
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J
The present revision petition preferred under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 06.12.2021
(Annexure P-8)
8) passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Rohtak vide which the application filed by the petitioner
petitioner-defendant
defendant under
Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') for
rejection of plaint was dismissed.
2. The respondents-plaintiffs
respondents plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that they
were entitled to get their share in the ancestral property described in the plaint
and that the Civil Court Decree dated 04.08.1993 (Annexure P-2) and
subsequent entries in the revenue record were illegal, null and void.
Consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the
petitioner-defendant
defendant from alienating the disputed la
land
nd was also sought. The
respondents-plaintiffs
plaintiffs were the widow and daughter of one Randhir Singh
whereas the petitioner-defendant
petitioner Jagbir Singh is the father of Randhir Singh..
Randhir Singh expired in 1999 after which the respondents-plaintiffs inherited
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:013397
the share of Randhir Singh from his ancestral/coparcenary property alongwith
the petitioner--defendant.. In April 2019, they approached the Patwari of the
area for obtaining copies of the revenue record. It was at this point of time that
they came to know that
th the petitioner-defendant
defendant had obtained a Civil Court
Decree dated 04.08.1993
04.08. alleged to have been suffered by Randhir Singh in
his favour, leading to the filing of the Civil Suit.
3. An application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC (Annexure P
P-3)
3) was
filed by the petitioner-defendant
petitioner for rejection of plaint primarily on the ground
of limitation stating that the decree had been passed in favour of the
petitioner-defendant
defendant in 1993 whereas the suit had been filed in the year 2019
i.e 26 years after the passing of the decree.
4. The application was opposed by way of a reply in which it was
averred that the suit was not barred by limitation as the respondents-plaintiffs
plaintiffs
were not having knowledge of the alleged decree.
5. By way of the impugned order dated 06.12.2
06.12.2021 (Annexure P-8),
8),
the application for rejection of plaint has been dismissed, leading to the filing
of the present revision petition.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned
order
er is not sustainable. He submits that the plaint was the result of clever
drafting and under the circumstances, it was for the Court to lift the veil.
Learned counsel submits that limitation cannot be stated to be a mixed
question of facts and law and that
that very recently, the Supreme Court of India
has held that a plaint can also be rejected if the suit is clearly barred by
limitation. He submits that under the circumstances, the impugned order
deserves to be set aside and the application filed by the petitioner-defendant
defendant
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:013397
for rejection of the plaint deserves to be allowed. In suppo
support
rt of his
contentions, he places reliance upon the judgments passed by the Supreme
Court of India in the case of 'C.S.
C.S. Ramaswamy Vs. V.K. Senthil and Others',,
2022 (4) RCR (Civil) 426, 'Ramisetty
Ramisetty Venkatanna and Another Vs. Nasyam
Jarnal Saheb and Others',
Others , 2023 (2) Law Herald (SC) 1005, 'Shri
Shri Mukund
Bhavan Trust and Others Vs. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje
Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle and Another',
Another , 2024 INSC 11025 and 'Indian
Indian
Evangelical Lutheran Church Trust Association Vs. Sri Bala and Co.
Co.',, 2025
INSC 42.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits
that there is no illegality in the impugned order warranting interference. He
submits thatt the respondents-plaintiffs did not have any knowledge about the
decree and it is only when they came to know about the same in the year
2019,, they immediately filed the suit. He submits that under the
circumstances, the plaint could not have been rejecte
rejectedd and the application
was, therefore, rightly dismissed by the trial Court.
9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties.
10. It is settled law that for rejection of plaint, only the contents of
the plaint have to be looked
looked into and the material produced by the
petitioner-defendant,
defendant, be it in the reply to the application for rejection of plaint
or otherwise is not to be considered. Reference can be made to the judgment
in the case of 'Kuldeep
' Singh Pathania Vs. Bikram Singh Jaryal
Jaryal',, 2017 AIR
SC 593.. In this judgment, the Supreme Court of India referred to various other
decisions upon the same point.
11. As regards the issue of limitation, the law is well settled that
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:013397
limitation is not a pure question of law and,
d, therefore, a plaint cannot be
rejected on the ground of limitation alone. Reference can be made to the
judgment in the case of 'M/s
M/s Mongia Realty and Buildwell Private Limited
Vs. Manik Sethi',
Sethi 2022 (11) SCC 572.. Reliance in this judgment was placed
upon
n the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Salim
Salim D.
Agboatwala and Others Vs. Shamalji Oddhavji Thakkar and Others
Others', 2021
AIR (SC) 5212.
5212. No doubt, recently the Supreme Court of India has held in the
case of C.S. Ramaswamy Vs. V.K. Senthil and Others
Others' (supra) that plaintiffs
cannot be permitted to bring suits within the period of limitation by clever
drafting which otherwise are barred by limitation. There is absolutely no
dispute in the said ratio of law laid down by the Supreme Court of IIndia
ndia which
is even otherwise settled law. If the suit, on the face of it, from the averments
of the plaint appears to be barred by limitation, the same is not required to be
continued only the ground that limitation is not a pure question of law. The
other judgments relied upon by learned counsel
counsel for the petitioner do not call
for any reference, they being on different issues. However, in the present case,
it has duly been averred in the plaint that the widow and daughter of Randhir
Singh were not aware about
about the decree and when they acquired knowledge
about the same, they filed a suit. Under these circumstances, limitation will
become a mixed question of facts and law.
12. If one applies the law on the subject to the facts of the present
case, it becomes clear that there was no occasion for the trial Court to reject
the plaint on the ground of limitation because from a reading of the plaint, it
does not emerge that the suit was barred by limitation. On the contrary, there
is a categoric averment in the suit that the respondents-plaintiffs were not
aware about the decree having been suffered by Randhir Singh in favour of
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:013397
his father i.e. the petitioner-defendant.. They have also taken the plea of fraud
in the plaint which shall have to be proved by leading evidence and the plaint
cannot be rejected at the threshold.
For the reasons aforementioned, I do not find any illegality in the
order under challenge and, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere in the
same. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present revision petition, the same
is dismissed.
(VIKRAM AGGARWAL)
28.01.2025 JUDGE
Prince Chawla
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
