C.R.No. 2442 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2442 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 9.4.2010. Sahab Singh ....Petitioner Versus Nanu Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. S.M. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJESH BINDAL, J **** Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated February 2, 2010, passed by the learned Court below whereby the application filed by the petitioner/defendant No. 3 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint, was dismissed. Briefly the facts are that respondents No.1 and 2/plaintiffs filed a suit praying for following reliefs: (i) Challenge to sale deeds dated 29.6.1961, 21.8.1962 and 2.11.1961. (ii)Judgments and decree dated 12.11.1990, 15.4.1993. (iii)Gift deed dated 18.6.2001 In that suit an application was filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that in the year 2002, respondents No.1 and 2/plaintiffs had filed a suit claiming all the aforesaid relief in which application was filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, for rejection of the plaint. Vide order dated March 23, 2004 the trial Court rejected the plaint. The order was impugned by the petitioner before the learned Lower Appellate Court where the matter in dispute was settled. The petitioner stated that he will have no objection to the plaintiff's proceedings with the suit regarding challenge to gift deed and judgments and decrees whereas respondents No.1 and 2/plaintiffs stated that they will withdraw challenge to the sale deeds. Thereafter, the plaint was amended in terms of settlement arrived at between the parties. Subsequently, the respondents No.1 and 2/plaintiffs withdrew the suit earlier filed on December 6, 2008 with permission to file a fresh on the same cause of action. In the fresh suit filed, the relief with regard to the setting aside of the sale deeds was again claimed which had earlier been dropped by C.R.No. 2442 of 2010 2 respondents No.1 and 2/plaintiffs. It is at this stage that the petitioner/defendant No.3 filed application for rejection of the plaint, which was dismissed by the learned Court below. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that considering the earlier development which had taken place after filing of suit by respondent No.1 and 2/plaintiffs in the year 2002, the present litigation is frivolous and the suit now filed by them claiming the relief which had earlier been dropped by them, the plaint deserves to be rejected. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. Though the issue sought to be raised before this Court is quite brief but number of issues raised before the Court below seeking rejection of plaint have been discussed thread bare in the impugned order but were not found meritorious. It is not in dispute that in the suit now filed all those reliefs have been claimed which were originally claimed by respondents No.1 and 2/plaintiffs in the suit filed in the year 2002. The challenge to the sale deeds was withdrawn by the respondents No.1 and 2/plaintiffs when the petitioner filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in the earlier suit and subsequent thereto the suit proceeded only with regard to other two reliefs namely-challenge to the judgments and decrees and gift deed. It could not be disputed at the time of arguments that while granting permission to respondents No.1 and 2/plaintiffs to withdraw the suit liberty was granted to file a fresh one to claim two reliefs namely challenge to the gift deed and judgments and decrees, meaning thereby that the claim regarding that survives. The only grouse which can be raised on various grounds which the petitioner may have, is that part of the relief claimed in the suit can be said to be barred by law or on account of earlier litigation between the parties which as such may not be claimed. For other two reliefs the respondent/plaintiff was permitted to withdraw the earlier suit with permission to file a fresh one. Merely if one of the reliefs can be said to be barred on account of legal grounds available to a defendant the plaint itself does not deserve to be rejected as respective claim of the effect can be gone into by the Court at appropriate stage of the case. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and the same is dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 9.4.2010. JUDGE Reema