Read Order: Yashpal Gulati v. Kulwinder Kaur and Others

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, June 13, 2022: While dealing with a revision petition wherein the petitioner was aggrieved by the dismissal of his Order 7 Rule 11 CPC application for rejection of the plaint on the ground that there were certain findings in the rent proceedings which were required to be proved in evidence, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has affirmed that the power to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is required to be exercised only when the Court comes to a definite conclusion that the suit from the reading of the plaint is either not maintainable or barred under the law. 

The Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal held, “Order 7 Rule 11 CPC enlists the various grounds on which the plaint can be rejected.”

The petitioner herein was a defendant in a suit filed by the plaintiffs for grant of declaration. His application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint at the threshold was dismissed by the trial Court while observing that the objection taken by the defendant was required to be proved by leading evidence and therefore the plaint could not be rejected. 

After considering the case as advanced by both the Counsels, the Court observed at the very outset that the power to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is required to be exercised only when the Court comes to a definite conclusion that the suit from the reading of the plaint is either not maintainable or barred under the law. 

Coming to the facts of the present case, Justice Kshetarpal observed that the petitioner objected to the maintainability of the suit on the ground that there were certain findings in the rent proceedings and regarding this objection, the Court was of the opinion that such facts were required to be proved in evidence. 

“Whether such findings would be binding or not is again the matter which is required to be decided after examining the facts of each and every case”, held the Bench while also adding that the Rent Controller exercises a limited jurisdiction. 

However, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to pray for framing of a distinct issue on the objection which the Court opined, would be decided by the court below along with the suit.

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the revision petition was disposed of.

0 CommentsClose Comments

Leave a comment