IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M.No.2278-CII of 2009 and C.R. NO.59 OF 2009 DATE OF ORDER: 21.3.2009 Harinder Pal Singh ....Petitioner(s) Versus Baby Zeenia and others ....Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Mohit Jaggi, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Amit Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.6. JASWANT SINGH, J. (ORAL) Petitioner-defendant No.1 has preferred this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for setting aside order dated 11.10.2008 (Annexure P.6) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Chandigarh whereby his application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for dismissal of the plaint, on the alleged ground that plaint discloses no cause of action, has been dismissed. Facts of the case are that three minor children-respondents No.1 to 3/plaintiffs of petitioner-defendant No.1 Harinder Pal Singh filed a suit, through their mother, on 30.1.2001 for decree of declaration to the effect that the alleged will dated 30.9.1994 executed by their grand-mother in favour of respondent No.4-M/s ZSS Electronics Pvt Ltd, own by their father Harinder Pal Singh is null and void and not binding on their right. Further prayer for permanent injunction was also made. On the basis of pleadings filed by the parties, issues were framed and the trial commenced. After C.M.No.2278-CII of 2009 and #2# C.R. NO.59 OF 2009 leading of entire evidence by the plaintiffs, the evidence of the petitioner- defendants commenced in early 2007. In fact, on 2.5.2007, petitioner tender his affidavit in the statement as examination-in-chief and his statement is to be cross examined. Since then, he has not appeared in the witness box to face cross examination of his statement on one pretext or the other by moving one application after the other thereby adopting delaying tactics. conducted on 2.5.2007. Since then, he has not offered himself for cross- examination on the pretext of moving one application or the other. It has been brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner-defendant No.1 had also on earlier occasion, moved an application for disposing of the present suit as it being infructuous as three minor children-plaintiffs had started residing with the petitioner-defendant No.1. The same was dismissed by the learned Court. It appears that thereafter the application (Annexure P.4) under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was filed by the petitioner-defendant for dismissal of the plaint on the ground that there existed no cause of action for filing the suit. Reply on behalf of the respondents-plaintiffs was filed and the application was rejected vide the impugned orders dated 11.10.2008 (Annexure P.6). It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant No.1 that the property bequeathed to him vide the impugned will by his mother was a self-acquired property and, therefore, the three contesting respondents-plaintiffs have no locus standi to maintain the suit as they are not the beneficiaries in any manner. It is further submitted that permitting the suit to continue shall only result in multiplicity of litigation. On the other hand, learned counsel for the contesting C.M.No.2278-CII of 2009 and #3# C.R. NO.59 OF 2009 respondents argues that the aforesaid application filed after eight years and at the fag end of the case is not maintainable and thus the same has been rightly dismissed by the learned trial Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and find no merit in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant No.1. From the perusal of the record, it is apparent that in the year 2001, the present suit was filed by the respondents-plaintiffs against the defendants for declaration by challenging the will in the year 2001. It is also not disputed that at the time, this application was made, the plaintiffs had already closed their evidence and the petitioner-defendants had also tendered his affidavit as examination-in-chief in May 2007 and since then the suit has not proceeded due to some reason or the other. The question, whether the respondents-plaintiffs are beneficiaries or not under any will or has any cause of action is to be adjudicated upon after leading of the evidence. In the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the aforesaid application by holding that without leading of evidence on behalf of the petitioner- defendants, it cannot be ascertained as to whether the respondents-plaintiffs had any cause of action or not at the fag end of the case. It is further rightly held that after eight years, the case of the plaintiffs could not be thrown out as the same would cause irreparable loss to them. Still further, it is well settled that the real object of the Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code is to keep out of the courts irresponsible law suits. I find that the petitioner is unnecessarily delaying the decision of the suit on merits in stead of completing his evidence. From the facts of C.M.No.2278-CII of 2009 and #4# C.R. NO.59 OF 2009 the case, it has not been shown, at all, that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action. In view of the above, I find no ground to interfere. Dismissed. March 21, 2009 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE