Punjab-Haryana High Court
Labhjit Singh vs Malkit Kaur And Others on 22 January, 2026
CR-310-2026 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
122 CR-310-2026
Date of Decision : 22.01.2026
LABHJIT SINGH .... PETITIONER
V/S
MALKIT KAUR AND OTHERS .... RESPONDENTS
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI
Present : Mr.Vinod Khunger, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI, J.
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 02.12.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Zira, District Ferozepur (for brevity "Civil Judge"), vide which an application filed by the petitioner/defendant No.4 (for brevity "Defendant No.4") under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity "1908 Code"), was dismissed.
2. Defendant No.4 alleges in the petition that the respondent/plaintiff (for brevity "plaintiff") filed a civil suit Annexure P-1 before the concerned Civil Court with the following prayer:-
"15. Hence it is humbly prayed that in the interest of justice this Hon'ble Court shall be pleased to grant a decree of declaration 1 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 28-01-2026 21:05:29 ::: CR-310-2026 -2- that the plaintiff is co-sharer in possession on land measuring 33 kanals 02 marlas out of the land measuring 70 kanals 09 marlas bearing khewat No. 411/403, 2129/2031, khatoni No. 488, 2544, khasra No. 218 M/9/1/2 (0-11), 10/3 (1-2), 11/2 (7-5), 2/2 (0-12), 8/2 (3-0), 9/1/1 (6-6), 12 (8-0), 19 (8-0), 13/2 (2-4), 217M/15/2 (1-14), 16/1 (7-14), 17/2 (2-6), 218M/20 (8-0), 13/1 (2-16), 18/2 (2-12), 22/1/1 (1-16), 22/1/2 (3-18), 22/1/3 (0-
16), 23/2/1 (1-8), 23/2/2 (0-9), situated in the area of Zira, as shown in jamabandi for the year 2020-2021, and that the partition proceedings pending in the Court of AC-1 Zira in cases titled i.e. Case No. 50/AC-1, titled Labhjit Singh versus Jagjit Singh etc.; Case No. 51/AC-1, titled Labhjit Singh versus Balvir Singh etc.; Case No. 52/AC-1, titled Labhjit Singh versus Ruldu Singh etc.; Case No. 53/AC-1, titled Labhjit Singh versus Palwinder Singh etc.; are illegally, null, void ab-initio, against the principle of natural justice, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff, being decreasing the ownership of plaintiff to the extent of 02 kanals 01 marlas without any reason, rath and rhythm, by fanciful manners and the same partition proceedings are not maintainable against the plaintiff and the ownership of plaintiff being 33 kanals 02 marlas could not be decreasing in any manners/ways, a clear question of title arose, with consequential relief of permanent injunction 2 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 28-01-2026 21:05:29 ::: CR-310-2026 -3- restraining the defendants not to interfere or alienate to the share of plaintiff likely to be illegally vested with them and further restrained the defendants from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff from the land measuring 33 kanals 02 marlas bearing khewat No. 411/403, 2129/2031, 2130/2032, khatoni No. 489, 2545, 2546, bearing khasra No. 218M//2/2 (0-12), 8/2 (3-0), 9/1/1 (6-6), 12 (8-0), 19 (8-0), 13/1 (2-16), 18/2 (2-12), 22/1/1 (1-16) situated in the area of Zira, Tehsil Zira, as shown in jamabandi for the year 2020-21, except than in due course of law, may be passed in the interest of justice in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants with costs."
3. He also alleges that the plaintiff had exchanged the land involved in the said suit with one Balbir Singh S/o Finno who was owner of the land measuring 35 kanals 09 marlas situated in above mentioned village and therefore, she became owner thereof by way of exchange. Defendant No.4 filed four applications for partition of land measuring 70 marlas 09 marlas of which the said 33 kanals 02 marlas is a part, before the Revenue Court at Zira. In the said partition application/s, the plaintiff did not appear despite service through munadi and was proceeded exparte. She filed an application for setting aside the said exparte order but it was dismissed. She was, however, allowed to join the proceedings at that stage, through an order dated 29.10.2009. She filed an appeal against the said order which was dismissed by the Collector concerned on 04.02.2010. A revision petition 3 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 28-01-2026 21:05:29 ::: CR-310-2026 -4- filed against the said dismissal was dismissed by the Commissioner of Ferozepur Division vide order dated 22.10.2011. The plaintiff filed a revision petition there against before the Financial Commissioner, Punjab which was dismissed on 10.12.2021. In the said revision petition, the plaintiff alleged that she is owner of land measuring 33 kanals and 02 marlas and has been given less land. Still feeling aggrieved, she filed CWP No.17563 of 2022 before this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn through an order dated 18.01.2023 with a liberty mentioned in the said order. On notice, the defendant No.4 appeared in the said suit and filed his written statement denying the allegations leveled in it. He accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the suit. During pendency of the suit, the defendant No.4 filed an application dated 09.07.2025 for rejection of the plaint. The prime ground taken in the application was a bar contained in Section 158 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (for brevity "1887 Act"). The plaintiff filed reply dated 29.07.2025 to the said application. Through the impugned order dated 02.12.2025, the learned Civil Judge has dismissed the said application.
4. I have heard Mr.Vinod Khunger, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.4 on the petition. With his assistance, I have perused the petition record.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that for the reasons mentioned in the application dated 09.07.2025, the same ought to have been allowed. His basic argument is that in terms of Section 158 of 1887 Act, the suit in question ought to have been rejected under the said 4 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 28-01-2026 21:05:29 ::: CR-310-2026 -5- order. In support of his arguments, he has also relied upon the reports Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. Vs. Mahaveer Lunia and ors., 2025 SCC Online SC 1208; and Reshma vs. Randeep Kaur and others, 2014 (82) RCR (Civil)
251.
6. After such hearing and perusal, I may state that in the abovementioned suit, the plaintiff had made the above reproduced prayer/s. If the said prayer/s and contents of the plaint in question are perused minutely, it comes out that therein the plaintiff has categorically mentioned that she is owner in possession of 33 kanalas 02 marlas of land being part of land measuring 70 kanals 0 marlas as per the jamabandi entries for the agriculture year 2020-21 and mutation thereof stands entered/sanctioned in her favour. If the plaint in question is read in depth, it comes out that through it, she wants to convey and contend that some of her cosharer/s has/have sold land in excess of their share/s and such sale has reduced the land owned and possessed by her, since the entire land measuring 70 kanals 0 marlas is a joint land. She has accordingly prayed for issuance of a declaration that she is a co-sharer in possession of the land measuring 33 kanals 02 marlas out of the said total land. True it is that in the plaint, the plaintiff has also prayed for declaring the partition proceedings filed by the defendant No.4 as non- est. At the same time, the said remedy is not the only remedy claimed by her in the plaint. Despite the said fact/s, the defendant No.4 filed the application in question under Order 7 Rule 11 of 1908 Code. Once it is so, it is necessary for me to deal with the said order as it is alleged to be applicable 5 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 28-01-2026 21:05:29 ::: CR-310-2026 -6- to the case in question. On perusal of the application, it comes out that Rule 11(a) and (d) of Order 7 is contended to be applicable to the case in question. Relevant portion of the said Rule is therefore reproduced as under :-
"11. Rejection of plaint.-- The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:--
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) & (c) xxx xxx xxx;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;
(e) & (f) xxx xxx xxx;
[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 from 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 injustice to the plaintiff.]"
7. If the said provisions are applied to the case in question, after minute reading of the plaint Annexure P-1, it does not appear that the plaint in question does not disclose any cause of action. May be that the defendant No.4 contends that the suit in question appears from the statement made in the plaint to be barred by Section 158 of the 1887 Act. At the same time, as mentioned above, the plaint claims two reliefs and not the only one as claimed by the defendant No.4. Furthermore, the suit in question appears to
6 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 28-01-2026 21:05:29 ::: CR-310-2026 -7- be involving mixed questions of facts and law. Such conclusion can be derived by its overall reading. In view thereof, it cannot be said that it deserves to be rejected under the said provision/s. So far as reports relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, Vinod Infra Developers Ltd.'s report (supra) itself holds that rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of 1908 Code is permissible only when plaint discloses no cause of action or is barred by law but triable issues raised in the plaint cannot be summarily dismissed. It also holds that Court must confine examination strictly to averments made in plaint without delving into merits or defense and even if one cause of action survives, the plaint cannot be rejected in its entirety. Reshma's report (supra), dealt with the plea raised by the defendant No.4 that the suit in question is barred by Section 158 of the 1887 Act but not the first plea/prayer made in the plaint about ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the suit property.
8. For what has been stated above, I find no ground to interfere in the impugned order dated 02.12.2025 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition in question is accordingly dismissed. It is, however, clarified that anything mentioned in the present order/judgment shall not affect final decision of the suit in question.
(RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI)
JUDGE
22.01.2026
anju
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
7 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 28-01-2026 21:05:29 :::