Punjab-Haryana High Court
Seth Fateh Chand Gulab Singh Jain ... vs Anil Kumar Jain And Others on 3 August, 2009
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Civil Revision No. 4223of 2009
Date of Decision:August 03, 2009
Seth Fateh Chand Gulab Singh Jain Memorial Trust Society, Gandhi
Chow, Hisar
---Petitioner
versus
Anil Kumar Jain and others
---Respondents
Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
***
Present: Mr.Anurag Jain,Advocate,
for the petitioner
***
SABINA J.
Plaintiff- Anil Kumar Jain had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of 1/24th share of suit land and had challenged the decree dated 10.6.1983 and mutation sanctioned in consequent to the said decree on the ground that the same was based on fraud. Notice of the suit was issued to the defendants. During the pendency of the suit, defendants moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking rejection of the plaint. Vide impugned order dated 21.4.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar, the said application was dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that no ground for interference is made out. Civil Revision No. 4223of 2009 -2-
Admittedly, now the case is listed for evidence of the plaintiff. Learned trial court while declining the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, has observed that it was a matter of evidence as to whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property or not with regard to which he had claimed partition and hence it would not be proper at this stage to decide whether the plaintiff is in possession or not. The said observation of the learned trial court does not call for any interference at this stage as it would not be in the interest of justice to reject the plaint. Issues have already been framed and the case is listed for plaintiff's evidence. All the relevant objections taken by the defendants would be appropriately decided after the evidence of the parties.
Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE August 03, 2009 PARAMJIT