CR No. 6052 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 24522-CII of 2009 and CR No. 6052 of 2009 Date of Decision: 29.10.2009 Ram Singh ....Petitioner. Versus Kishori and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Kul Bhushan Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. C.M. No. 24522-CII of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. C.R. No. 6052 of 2009 The defendant-petitioner has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order dated 28.7.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by the trial court vide which the application filed by him under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short “the Code”) for rejection of the plaint was dismissed. The defendant-petitioner had filed an application under Clause (a) of Rule 11 of Order 7 of the Code on the ground that the plaintiff-respondents had no cause of action for filing a suit for declaration and injunction with consequential relief challenging decree CR No. 6052 of 2009 -2- of civil court passed in civil suit No. 202/95/2001 titled as 'Ram Singh v. Niranjan and others'. According to the learned counsel, a decree cannot be challenged by way of separate suit in view of Order 21 Rule 101 of the Code. The aforesaid plea of the defendant was controverted by the plaintiff on the ground that he was not a party to the proceedings of execution and further in the execution proceedings, it was held that Ram Singh had no concern with the suit property. With these averments, prayer for dismissal of the application was made. The trial court while declining the aforesaid application, in para 4 of its order, had recorded as under:- “4. A reading of this clause shows that a plaint is liable to be rejected if it does not disclose a cause of action. This provision is procedural in nature and while referring to this provision, the pleadings of defendant on the evidence of the parties is not required to be considered. This provision deals with a situation where a plaint is filed but a cause of action is not disclosed. Such plaint becomes liable for rejection. Whether or not a cause of action exists in reality in an issue which is required to be decided upon, only after appreciation of evidence led by both the parties. At this stage, on the basis of pleadings of parties, it cannot be held that the plaintiff has no cause of action at all. Evidence in that regard is yet to come. Perusal of plaint shows that plaintiff has CR No. 6052 of 2009 -3- disclosed cause of action therein. Its legality or validity will be discussed upon during the proceedings of this case. Disclosure of cause of action by plaintiff takes the plaint out of the ambit of Order 7, Rule 11 (a) CPC.” In view of the above and after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, no ground to exercise its jurisdiction by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. Accordingly, there is no merit in the instant revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. October 29, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE