In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No.2263 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 1.4.2011 Municipal Council, Thanesar ......petitioner Versus Siri Narain and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Sanjay S.Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs-respondents No. 1 to 4 have filed a suit for declaration that they were absolute owners as co-sharers of Khasra No.207/2. During the pendency of the suit, an application was filed by defendants No.1 and 2 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC for short). Vide the impugned order dated 5.2.2011, the said application was dismissed by the trial Court. Hence, the present petition by defendant No.1. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. The trial Court, while dismissing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC held that the record revealed that the defendants had been moving one application after another with a view to delay the disposal of the suit. The suit land had been Civil Revision No.2263 of 2011 (O&M) -2- demarcated by the Local Commissioner. The case of the plaintiffs is that they are in possession of the suit land being share holder in the shamlat deh land. After consolidation, plaintiff No.1 was transferred 3/4th share and Om Parkash was transferred 1/4th share vide sale deed dated 29.1.1960. Plaintiff No.1 had transferred the land out of his share to plaintiff No.3. The plaintiffs were in occupation of the suit property. In these circumstances, learned trial Court rightly held that whether the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit or not would be determined at the final stage. No ground for interference by this Court is made out. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE April 01, 2011 anita