Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court Dismisses Revision Petition Challenging Rejection of Plaint in Suit for Permanent Injunction

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging the rejection of a plaint in a suit for permanent injunction. Justice Alka Sarin, presiding over the bench, delivered the verdict on 4th July 2023, upholding the impugned order dated 2nd February 2023.

The revision petition (CR No. 3352 of 2023) was filed by the defendant-petitioners, seeking the rejection of the plaint filed by the plaintiff-respondents. The plaintiffs had sought a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession of a land measuring 06 acres 07 kanals 03 marlas in Pathankot GT Road, Village Noorpur, Tehsil and District Jalandhar.

The defendant-petitioners contended that the suit was not maintainable as the plaintiffs were not in possession of the said property. Additionally, they argued that the suit relied on an unregistered agreement to sell and that an alternative remedy of filing a suit for specific performance was available to the plaintiffs.

Justice Alka Sarin, in her judgment, stated, “While deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only the averments of the plaint are to be seen.” She highlighted that the plaintiffs had specifically averred their possession and the need for an injunction against dispossession. The judge further noted that the question of possession raised by the defendant-petitioners could not be considered at this stage. She also emphasized that the availability of an alternative remedy and the reliance on an unregistered agreement were matters of evidence, not grounds for rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

Quoting from the judgment, Justice Alka Sarin concluded, “Learned counsel for the petitioners has been unable to convince this Court that there is any ground made out under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint.” Accordingly, the revision petition was deemed devoid of merit and dismissed.

This decision by the Punjab and Haryana High Court clarifies the importance of considering only the averments in the plaint while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The judgment reinforces that grounds for rejection should be established based on the content of the plaint, rather than issues that require evidentiary examination.

The case did not refer to any specific previous judgments or cases in reaching its conclusion.

Date of Decision: 4th July 2023

Satwant Singh (deceased) vs Ranjit Singh and Others            

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Satwant-Vs-Ranjit-04-July-23-PH-HC.pdf"]                                           -

Latest Legal News