Civil Revision No.3266 of 2006 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3266 of 2005 Date of Decision: February 11, 2008 Om Parkash & others ...Petitioners VERSUS Raghbir Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.H.S.Hooda, Senior Advocate with Mr.Vivek Singla, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.B.R.Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. Respondent Raghbir Singh filed a suit for partition of a joint property pleading that he along with defendants are members of a Joint Hindu Family. The respondent further pleads that he had earlier filed a suit for partition titled “Raghbir Singh Versus Baij Nath etc.” on 16.8.1984, which was decreed on 17.10.1985. Petitioners Civil Revision No.3266 of 2006 : 2 : No.1 and 2 had filed an appeal which was disposed of in terms of compromise/family settlement dated 7.5.1986. The respondent further pleads that this compromise was not acted upon by the parties and the suit property remained joint property of the respondent-plaintiff and that of the defendants. The petitioners filed a joint written statement saying that respondent-plaintiff is estopped by his conduct to file the present suit. They further plead that respondent-plaintiff has received a sum of Rs.5,000/- in cash etc. The compromise has also been reproduced in the revision petition. The petitioners accordingly filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) read with Order 23 Rule 1 (4) CPC for rejection of the plaint. It is claimed that present suit is barred by Order 23 Rule 1 (4) CPC as the respondent-plaintiff had filed the suit for partition on 16.8.1984, which was got dismissed by him in terms of the written compromise dated 7.5.1986. This application filed by the petitioners is dismissed by the court, which is now impugned in the present revision petition. While resisting the application, it is urged that cause to get the suit land partitioned is a recurring cause and is not defeated by previous litigation. It is further pleaded that the application dated 5.6.1986 moved by the parties was got signed from the respondent- plaintiff under pressure and undue influence. He, thus, had every right to bring the fresh suit for partition of the suit land. The trial Court has dismissed the application by observing that respondent should be given an opportunity to establish his averment that consent to make the statement before the Appellate Court is vitiated by undue influence. It is further noticed that the Civil Revision No.3266 of 2006 : 3 : dispute relates to the facts and can be only resolved after framing of issues and affording opportunities to the parties to lead their respective evidence. Mr.H.S.Hooda, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the trial Court was required to pass an appropriate order on the application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) read with Order 23 Rule 1 (4) CPC by either accepting or rejecting the prayer made in the application. Mr.B.R.Gupta representing the respondent would say that the grounds as pleaded in the application would not be valid grounds to reject a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC. As per the provisions, the plaint can be rejected only on the following grounds:- (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 written 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; (e) where it is not filed in duplicate; (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9. Civil Revision No.3266 of 2006 : 4 : Plea further is that present suit is also not barred under Order 23 Rule 1(4) CPC. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the trial Court has not given any finding whether such an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) is maintainable on the grounds as pleaded or not. As per Order 7 Rule 11 (d), plaint is to be rejected where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. The trial Court was required to see if the present suit would be barred by any law on the ground that there was earlier suit of partition which was compromised. No finding is forthcoming on this aspect. The effect of Order 23 Rule 1 CPC governing the rule of withdrawal of suit or abandonment of part of claim in view of the earlier compromise is also required to be seen. The maintainability of a suit and the requirement of determining the issue arising from the suit so filed by the respondent-plaintiff is a different issue. The trial court was, in my view, required to deal with the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC. Since these issues arising in the application have not been decided by the trial Court, it would be appropriate to set-aside the impugned order and remand the case to the trial Court to decide the application afresh. It is so ordered. The parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the trial Court on 11.3.2008. The trial Court would decide the application afresh after giving opportunity and hearing the parties. The present revision petition is accordingly disposed of. February 11, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE Civil Revision No.3266 of 2006 : 5 :