Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ritu Chaudhary @ Ritu Jaglan vs Satinder Singh Chaudhary And Anr on 20 January, 2016
Author: Shekher Dhawan
Bench: Shekher Dhawan
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh
Civil Revision No. 5642 of 2015
Date of Decision: 20.01.2016
Ritu Chaudhary alias Ritu Jaglan
... Petitioner(s)
Versus
Satvinder Singh Chaudhary and Another
... Respondent(s)
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shekher Dhawan.
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to
see judgment?
2. To be referred to reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner(s).
Shekher Dhawan, J.
Petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.8.2015, whereby application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, filed by the respondents for rejection of plaint, was accepted.
Relevant facts of the case for the purpose of decision of the present petition that plaintiff filed suit against the respondent/defendants thereby challenging relinquishment deed dated 1.8.2013. The ground taken by the plaintiff that she, being legally wedded wife of defendant No.1, has also her share in the property transferred in relinquishment deed as the said property was ancestral property.
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2016.01.22 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Civil Revision No. 5642 of 2015 2
Application was contested on the ground that defendant No.1 had no right to transfer the property in favour of defendant No.2. The plaintiff, being legally wedded wife, has legal right in the ancestral property in the hands of defendant No.1 and as such, has every right to challenge the relinquishment deed.
Learned trial Judge, after considering the facts, accepted the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submitted that matter in controversy is of such a nature which required leading of evidence by the parties. The said controversy whether the wife got a right in the immovable property and she can challenge the same is a mixed question of facts and law. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the Court below, without taking into consideration the fact that the ancestral property may revert back to the husband of the petitioner and any subsequent agreement would dilute her right is not warranted in the eyes of law. More so, petitioner, being a coparcener of joint hindu family property, has every right along with respondent No.1. That way, the relinquishment deed executed by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.2 is not permissible in the eyes of law and the property is liable to be reverted back to respondent No.1 and the right of petitioner to that extent is permissible in the eyes of law. These facts have not been considered by the Court below while passing the order under challenge.
Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2016.01.22 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Civil Revision No. 5642 of 2015 3 rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be ordered on the following grounds:
"11. Rejection of plaint-- The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:--
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature form correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper , as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2016.01.22 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Civil Revision No. 5642 of 2015 4 injustice to the plaintiff."
The above referred provisions of law make it ample clear that if any controversy involved mixed questions of facts as well as law and requires leading of evidence by the parties, the said controversy is to be decided after settlement of issues and plaint cannot be rejected merely on that ground. In the case in hand, the controversy involved whether petitioner is a coparcener of the joint hindu family property or not. Such a controversy could be decided only by leading the evidence and as such plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in such cases. Such a view was taken by the Delhi High Court in Varun Thakore v. D.P.Thakore 1998(1) RCR (Civil) 603 . However, the Court below has not considered these facts while passing the impugned order.
Resultantly, present petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 11.8.2015 stands set aside.
(Shekher Dhawan) Judge January 20, 2016 "DK"
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2016.01.22 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document