Punjab-Haryana High Court
Partap Singh vs Smt. Krishna Devi And Another on 23 May, 2012
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
Civil Revision No. 5394 of 2011 (1)
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 5394 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision : 23.5.2012
Partap Singh ..... Petitioner
vs
Smt. Krishna Devi and another ..... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Onkar Rai, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal J.
Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 1.6.2011 passed by the learned court below whereby the application filed by the petitioner-defendant for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, was dismissed.
Proceedings in the present case arise out of a suit for recovery of ` 2,65,000/- along with interest and cost filed by the respondents against the petitioner pleading that though sale-deed was got registered by the petitioner in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs after taking the money, however, when they had gone to take the possession, it was resisted by Ramesh Chand son of Bhim Singh claiming that sale-deed got registered by the petitioner is the result of fraud as he did not have any right to sell the property. The plaintiffs also got FIR No. 170 dated 15.4.2007 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station City Ballabgarh, District Faridabad, against the petitioner. It is under these circumstances that the suit for recovery was filed in which the petitioner filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint, which was dismissed by the learned court below vide order dated 1.6.2011.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once admittedly the sale-deed regarding the property had been registered in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs and the same has not been cancelled till Civil Revision No. 5394 of 2011 (2) date, the suit for recovery cannot be filed. There was no cause of action, hence, the plaint was required to be rejected.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and persuing the averments made by the respondents-plaintiffs in the suit where the allegations are that they have been defrauded by getting the sale-deed registered pertaining to the property which the petitioner could not sell and also the fact that they were not put in possession of the property, in my opinion, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The impugned order does not call for interference by this court. The petition is dismissed.
23.5.2012 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge