Civil Revision No.4507 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4507 of 2011 Date of Decision:27.07.2011 Bal Kishan Garodia ......Petitioner Versus M/s East India Fabrics Mfg. Co.Ltd., and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The combination of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emitting from the record is, that M/s East India Fabrics Mfg. Co.Ltd.-respondent No.1-plaintiff(hereinafter to be referred as “the plaintiff- Company”) filed the suit for a decree of declaration, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction, against Bal Kishan Garodia-petitioner-defendant No.1, Haryana Urban Development Authority(HUDA), its Estate Officer and the Collector, Rewari-defendants(for brevity “the defendants”). 2. Having framed the essential issues, in the wake of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court slated the case for evidence of the plaintiff, by virtue of order dated 20.12.2007. 3. During the course of advance stage of trial, defendant No.1 moved an application(Annexure P/6), for rejection of the plaint, invoking the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, on the ground of non-payment of ad valorem court fees, limitation and absence of notice under Section 80 CPC. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the petitioner-defendants claimed that since, the suit of the plaintiff- Civil Revision No.4507 of 2011 2 Company is time barred and neither it paid the ad valorem court fees, nor issued any notice under Section 80 CPC, so, the suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 4. The plaintiff-Company refuted the prayer of the defendants, filed the reply, inter alia, pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the application, at this belated stage. The plaintiff-Company has stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and prayed for its dismissal. 5. The trial Court dismissed the application of the defendants, by means of impugned order dated 19.05.2011. 6. Aggrieved by the impugned decision of the trial Court, petitioner- defendant No.1 preferred the present revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this respect. 8. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that since, the suit filed by the plaintiff-Company is barred by limitation and not maintainable, on account of non-payment of court fees and for want of notice under Section 80 CPC, so, the trial Court ought to have rejected the plaint, is neither tenable nor the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Samar Singh Versus Kedar Nath and others, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1926, are at all applicable to the facts of the present case, wherein it was observed that if an election petition does not disclose cause of action, it can be dismissed summarily at the threshold of the proceeding under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. If an election petition can be summarily rejected at the threshold of the proceeding, the same can also be rejected at any stage of subsequent proceeding. Possibly, no one can dispute with regard to the aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court, but to me, the same would not come to Civil Revision No.4507 of 2011 3 the rescue of the petitioner-defendants in the instant case. 9. As is evident from the record that the plaintiff-Company filed the suit for a decree of declaration, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction, against the defendants. In the wake of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court has already framed the following issues, by way of order dated 20.12.2007 (Annexure P-4):- “1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the property as detailed in para No.1 of the plaint and has spent more than Rs.20 lakhs for construction thereof and Rs.two lakhs for electrical installation?OPP 2. Whether the transfer order of the aforesaid property in favour of defendant No.1 made by defendants No.2 & 3 is illegal, null and void and without any consideration which is liable to be set aside and is not binding on the rights of the plaintiff?OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent and mandatory injunction as prayed for?OPP 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable for want of any locus standi of the plaintiff?OPD 5. Whether the suit if barred by time and is also deficient in court fee and therefore, is liable to be rejected u/o 7 Rule 11 CPC?OPD 6. Whether the suit is bad for mandatory notice of Section 80 CPC?OPD 7. Relief.” 10. The plaintiff-Company has already closed its evidence and the case is pending for evidence of the defendants. Instead of concluding the evidence, defendant No.1 moved an application for rejection of the plaint, at this belated stage. There should be cogent material on record, to reject the plaint, which is totally lacking in the instant case. To me, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the same, through the medium of impugned order dated 19.05.2011, the operative part of which is, as under:- “Perusal of the file reveals that at the time of filing of the present application, case is fixed for defendant evidence. In the written statement, no plea of Benami Transaction was taken by the applicant defendant. Therefore, no issue was framed on this point. Furthermore, the applicant- defendant No.1 did not urge for framing of any additional issues Civil Revision No.4507 of 2011 4 concerning present dispute. Therefore, raising the same at this belated stage shows malicious approach of the applicant with intention to harass and divert the mind of the court from the real controversy involved in this case. As stated above, the case was pending for defendant evidence and the plaintiff evidence has already been closed. The suits is in a very advance stage and the present application filed by the applicant with sole object of avoiding to give the defence evidence. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the present application having no merit and the same is hereby dismissed.” 11. Meaning thereby, the trial Court has recorded the valid grounds in the impugned order in this relevant connection. Such order, containing the valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court, as contemplated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. As, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 12. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed as such. July 27, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE