[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ashulika Sharma And Another vs Janhit Sewa Charitable Trust Through ... on 6 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
****
CR-2062-2026
Date of decision: 06.03.2026
Smt. Ashulika Sharma and another
. . . . Petitioners
Vs.
Janhit Sewa Charitable Trust (Regd.) 576, Sector 16A, Faridabad
. . . . Respondent
****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
****
Present: - Mr. Anurag Mor and Mr. Nitin Verma, Advocates,
for the petitioners.
****
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
The present revision petition has been filed by the defendants
challenging the order dated 22.08.2024 (Annexure P4) passed by the learned
Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, whereby their application under Order
VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint was
dismissed, as well as the subsequent order dated 13.11.2025, whereby the
review application filed by them under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1
CPC was also dismissed.
2. The respondent-plaintiff, a charitable trust, instituted a civil suit
challenging the validity of a Will dated 06.10.2015 allegedly executed by Smt.
Asarfi Devi and seeking declaratory and consequential reliefs. During the
pendency of the suit, the defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule
11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on several grounds, inter alia, that the
trust could not institute the suit in its own name, that all trustees had not been
impleaded as parties, that the provisions of Section 92 CPC and Order XXXI CPC
had not been complied with, that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action,
and that the suit was barred by Order II Rule 2 CPC.
3. The learned trial Court, after hearing the parties and considering
the pleadings, dismissed the said application by a detailed order dated
22.08.2024. The trial Court held that while considering an application under
1 of 4
CR-2062-2026 2026:PHHC:034319
Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only the averments contained in the plaint and the
documents annexed therewith can be looked into. The Court further held that
the plaint disclosed a clear cause of action, as the plaintiff had challenged the
Will dated 06.10.2015 on grounds such as incapacity of the testator, fraud and
undue influence. It was further observed that the questions regarding the
authority of the person instituting the suit on behalf of the trust, the validity of
the authority letter, and the applicability of Order II Rule 2 CPC involved mixed
questions of law and fact, which could not be adjudicated at the stage of
deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The trial Court accordingly
concluded that none of the grounds raised by the defendants justified rejection
of the plaint.
4. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendants filed an application
seeking review of the order dated 22.08.2024, contending that the Court had
committed errors apparent on the face of the record and had relied upon
judgments, which were not applicable to the facts of the case. The learned trial
Court examined the scope of review jurisdiction under Section 114 read with
Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and held that review can be entertained only when
there is discovery of new and important matter, or when there is an error
apparent on the face of the record. It was observed that the grounds raised by
the defendants required re-examination of the merits of the case and involved
a process of reasoning, which cannot be undertaken in review jurisdiction. The
trial Court accordingly held that no error apparent on the face of the record
had been shown and dismissed the review application vide order dated
13.11.2025.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has reiterated before this
Court the same contentions, which were raised before the trial Court,
particularly that the trust was not competent to institute the suit in its own
name and that the provisions of Section 92 CPC and Order XXXI CPC had not
been complied with. It has also been argued that the suit is barred by Order II
Rule 2 CPC and therefore, the plaint ought to have been rejected.
6 Having considered the submissions made and perused the
impugned orders, this Court finds no merit in the present revision petition.
2 of 4
CR-2062-2026 2026:PHHC:034319
7. It is a settled principle of law that while deciding an application
under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court has to confine itself to the averments
made in the plaint and the documents relied upon therein. The defence raised
by the defendants or disputed questions requiring evidence cannot be
considered at that stage. The trial Court has correctly applied this settled
principle while examining the application filed by the defendants.
8. A meaningful reading of the plaint shows that the plaintiff has
challenged the Will dated 06.10.2015 on various grounds including incapacity
of the testator, fraud and undue influence. These averments clearly disclose a
cause of action for filing the suit. Whether the plaintiff will ultimately succeed
in proving those allegations is a matter, which can only be determined during
the course of trial.
9. Similarly, the question whether the person who instituted the suit
had proper authority to represent the trust, or whether all trustees were
required to be impleaded, are matters which involve disputed facts and require
evidence. Such issues cannot be adjudicated at the stage of deciding an
application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
10. The contention regarding the bar of Order II Rule 2 CPC has also
been rightly rejected by the trial Court by holding that the applicability of such
bar is a mixed question of law and fact, which cannot be decided without
examining the pleadings and evidence relating to the earlier proceedings.
11. As regards the order dismissing the review application, the trial
Court has correctly noticed that the power of review is extremely limited and
cannot be exercised merely because another view on the merits of the matter
is possible. The review jurisdiction cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal.
The petitioners failed to point out any patent or self-evident error in the earlier
order, and therefore the dismissal of the review application does not suffer
from any illegality.
12. The scope of interference by this Court in revision under Section
115 CPC is also limited. Interference is warranted only when the subordinate
Court has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise
3 of 4
CR-2062-2026 2026:PHHC:034319
jurisdiction vested in it, or has acted with material irregularity in the exercise of
its jurisdiction. No such jurisdictional error or material irregularity is made out
in the present case.
13. The impugned orders passed by the trial Court are well reasoned
and do not suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference by
this Court.
14. Consequently, the present revision petition is dismissed.
15. It is, however, clarified that any observation made herein is only
for the purpose of deciding the present revision petition and shall not be
construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case pending before
the trial Court.
(DEEPAK GUPTA)
06.03.2026 JUDGE
Vivek
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable No
4 of 4
