Ram Sawroop And Ors. vs Jai Onkar Antarrashtriya Sewa Ashram Sang And Ors.

CR-2416-2025 (O&M) -:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(203)
CR-2416-2025 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 30.10.2026
RAM SAWROOP AND ORS.
… Petitioners
Versus
JAI ONKAR ANTARRASHTRIYA SEWA ASHRAM SANG AND ORS.
... Respondents
-.-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Present:- Mr. Vijay Kumar Jindal, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Yashvardhan Goyal, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Nischal Chetanya Manchanda, Advocate,
Mr. Shivam Gupta, Advocate,
Ms. Reema, Advocate and
Mr. Vipul Thakur, Advocate
for the respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr. Kushagra Beniwal, Advocate
for respondent No.3.
-.-
VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)
1. Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, assailing the order dated 19.03.2025 (Annexure P-10), passed by
the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kurukshetra, whereby the application
(Annexure P-9) preferred by the petitioners under Order VII Rule 11 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint, has been
dismissed.
GAURAV SOROT
2026.10.31 11:48

CR-2416-2025 (O&M) -:2:-
1.1. It is further prayed that, during the pendency of the present
petition, further proceedings in Civil Suit No. 197 of 2025 (Annexure P-7),
pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kurukshetra, be stayed
in the interest of justice.
2. The brief facts of the present revision petition are that
respondents No. 1 and 2/plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration, claiming
ownership and possession of the suit land on the basis of an alleged oral
gift by Bindra Rani, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners/defendants
No. 1 to 5, besides seeking setting aside of the impugned mutations
(Annexures P-4 to P-6), the Will dated 20.07.2006 (registered on
30.05.2013) (Annexure P-1), the settlement/transfer deed (Annexure P-2)
and the transfer deed (Annexure P-3). The petitioners sought rejection of
the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC (Annexure
P-9), inter alia , contending that the alleged oral gift was impermissible
under Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the suit was
barred by limitation in view of the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ challenge to
the mutations by the Collector, Thanesar, vide order dated 16.01.2020
(Annexure P-8), and the plaintiffs, being strangers to Bindra Rani, lacked
locus standi to challenge the aforesaid instruments. The application was
dismissed vide order dated 19.03.2025 (Annexure P-10), which is
impugned in the present revision petition.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners contends that the
Civil Judge has failed to properly appreciate the pleadings and material on
record, which unequivocally reveal that the plaintiffs’ claim is founded
upon an alleged oral gift, impermissible in law under Section 123 of the
GAURAV SOROT
2026.10.31 11:48

CR-2416-2025 (O&M) -:3:-
Transfer of Property Act, 1882, absent a duly executed and registered
instrument. It is further argued that the Court has erred in treating the issue
of limitation as invariably a mixed question of law and fact,
notwithstanding the settled position that a plaint is liable to rejection
where the bar of limitation is apparent from its own averments. In the
present case, the plaintiffs have themselves pleaded that they acquired
knowledge of the Will, family settlement and consequential mutations
soon after their execution in 2013; hence, the suit instituted after an
inordinate delay is ex facie barred by limitation. Accordingly, the
impugned order is legally unsustainable and warrants interference by this
Court.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that
the impugned order suffers from no illegality or infirmity warranting
interference by this Court. It is contended that a Mandir exists over the suit
land and that half share thereof has been transferred to the respondent-
plaintiffs through a registered instrument. It is further submitted that,
although an earlier suit instituted by the respondent-plaintiffs was
dismissed, the regular second appeal arising therefrom is pending
adjudication before this Court and, therefore, the findings recorded therein
have not attained finality. Learned counsel further contends that the
question of limitation constitutes a mixed question of law and fact,
requiring adjudication on merits, and that the plaintiffs cannot be non-
suited at the threshold on that ground. In support of these submissions,
reliance is placed upon Babasaheb Ramdas Shirole and Others vs. Rohit
Enterprises and Others, 2026 (1) RCR (Civil) 60 , and P.
GAURAV SOROT
2026.10.31 11:48

CR-2416-2025 (O&M) -:4:-
Kumarakurubaran vs. P. Narayanan and Others, 2025 INSC 598 .
Accordingly, dismissal of the present revision petition is sought.
5. Section 123 of Transfer of Property Act reads as under:-
123. Transfer how effected:-
For the purpose of making a gift of immoveable property, the transfer
must be effected by a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the
donor, and attested by at least two witnesses.
For the purpose of making a gift of moveable property, the transfer may
be effected either by a registered instrument signed as aforesaid or by
delivery. Such delivery may be made in the same way as goods sold may
be delivered.
5.1. The law enunciated by this Court in Jagdev Singh vs. Ganga
Devi, 2014(1) Law Herald 822 , reiterates that a gift of immovable property
can be effected only through a registered instrument, duly signed by or on
behalf of the donor and attested by at least two witnesses. Similarly, in
Chanan Singh vs. Pritam Kaur and Another, AIR 1984 PHHC 153 , this
Court held that immovable property cannot be transferred by way of an
oral gift.
6. In the present case, the respondent-plaintiff claims right, title
and interest in the suit property on the basis of an alleged oral gift made by
Smt. Bindra Rani. Significantly, in paragraph 4 of the plaint, the plaintiff
itself averred that Bindra Rani had been assuring the institution that she
would transfer her share in the land through a registered instrument. This
averment prima facie indicates the plaintiff’s awareness that a valid
transfer of immovable property by way of gift requires compliance with the
statutory formalities and cannot be founded merely upon an oral assertion.
GAURAV SOROT
2026.10.31 11:48

CR-2416-2025 (O&M) -:5:-
Admittedly, no registered gift instrument was executed in favour of the
respondent-plaintiff during the lifetime of Bindra Rani.
6.1. Further, as pleaded in paragraph 7 of the plaint, defendants
No. 1 and 2 had instituted a suit for permanent injunction against the
respondent-plaintiff on the basis of an unregistered Will allegedly executed
by Bindra Rani in their favour. Paragraph 9 of the plaint further records
that the plaintiff had sought framing of an issue in those proceedings
concerning the defendants’ status as legal heirs of Bindra Rani and the
validity of the Will propounded by them. The plaintiff also pleaded that,
upon making inquiries, it learnt that Mutation No. 26807 dated 15.12.2012
had been sanctioned in favour of defendant No. 1 to the extent of 34/43
share on the basis of Tamleeque Nama Nos. 1614/1 and 1611/1, both dated
11.05.2012, pertaining to land measuring 9 kanals and 1 marla. It was
further averred that another mutation had been sanctioned in favour of
defendants No. 1 to 5 on the basis of a registered Will dated 30.05.2013,
stated to have been drafted on 20.07.2006 under registered deed No. 110/3,
concerning the same land.
6.2. The aforesaid pleadings, read cumulatively, raise a substantial
question as to the legal foundation of the respondent-plaintiff’s asserted
entitlement, particularly when its claim rests upon an alleged oral gift of
immovable property, which is not recognised by law. The plaintiff’s own
averments regarding the absence of a registered gift instrument assume
significance in examining whether the plaint discloses a legally enforceable
cause of action. The scope and parameters of the Court’s jurisdiction under
Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, have been
GAURAV SOROT
2026.10.31 11:48

CR-2416-2025 (O&M) -:6:-
authoritatively delineated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dahiben vs.
Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) (Dead) through LRs and Others,
(2020) 7 SCC 366 , wherein it was held as under:-
23.2 The remedy under Order 7, Rule 11 is an independent and special
remedy, wherein the court is empowered to summarily dismiss a
suit at the threshold, without proceeding to record evidence, and
conducting a trial, on the basis of the evidence adduced, if it is
satisfied that the action should be terminated on any of the
grounds contained in this provision.
23.3 The underlying object of Order 7, Rule 11 (a) is that if in a suit, no
cause of action is disclosed, or the suit is barred by limitation
under Rule 11(d), the court would not permit the plaintiff to
unnecessarily protract the proceedings in the suit. In such a case, it
would be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation, so that
further judicial time is not wasted.
23.4 In Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, 1986 Supp SCC 315 followed
in Manvendrasinhji Ranjitsinhji Jadeja v. Vijaykunverba, 1998
SCC Online Guj 281: (1998) 2 GLH 823, this Court held that the
whole purpose of conferment of powers under this provision is to
ensure that a litigation which is meaningless, and bound to prove
abortive, should not be permitted to waste judicial time of the
court, in the following words:
"12....The whole purpose of conferment of such powers is to
ensure that a litigation which is meaningless, and bound to prove
abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time of the court,
and exercise the mind of the respondent. The sword of Damocles
need not be kept hanging over his head unnecessarily without
point or purpose. Even in an ordinary civil litigation, the court
GAURAV SOROT
2026.10.31 11:48

CR-2416-2025 (O&M) -:7:-
readily exercises the power to reject a plaint, if it does not disclose
any cause of action."
23.5 The power conferred on the court to terminate a civil action is,
however, a drastic one, and the conditions enumerated in Order 7,
Rule 11 are required to be strictly adhered to.
23.6 Under Order 7, Rule 11, a duty is cast on the court to determine
whether the plaint discloses a cause of action by scrutinizing the
averments in the plaint (Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v.
M.V. Sea Success I, (2004) 9 SCC 512], read in conjunction with
the documents relied upon, or whether the suit is barred by any
law..…
23.9 In exercise of power under this provision, the court would
determine if the assertions made in the plaint are contrary to
statutory law, or judicial dicta, for deciding whether a case for
rejecting the plaint at the threshold is made out.
23.10.At this stage, the pleas taken by the defendant in the written
statement and application for rejection of the plaint on the merits,
would be irrelevant, and cannot be adverted to, or taken into
consideration. (Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Charity Commr., (2004) 3
SCC 137]
23.11.The test for exercising the power under Order 7, Rule 11 is that if
the averments made in the plaint are taken in entirety, in
conjunction with the documents relied upon, would the same
result in a decree being passed. This test was laid down in
Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I
[Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I,
(2004) 9 SCC 512] which reads as: (SCC p. 562, para 139)
"139. Whether a plaint discloses a cause of action or not is
GAURAV SOROT
2026.10.31 11:48

CR-2416-2025 (O&M) -:8:-
essentially a question of fact. But whether it does or does not must
be found out from reading the plaint itself. For the said purpose,
the averments made in the plaint in their entirety must be held to
be correct. The test is as to whether if the averments made in the
plaint are taken to be correct in their entirety, a decree would be
passed."
23.12.In Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. v. Hede & Co. [Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. v.
Hede & Co., (2007) 5 SCC 614] the Court further held that it is
not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage, and to read it in
isolation. It is the substance, and not merely the form, which has
to be looked into. The plaint has to be construed as it stands,
without addition or subtraction of words. If the allegations in the
plaint primafacie show a cause of action, the court cannot embark
upon an enquiry whether the allegations are true in fact. D.
Ramachandran v. R.V. Janakiraman [D. Ramachandran v. R.V.
Janakiraman, (1999) 3 SCC 267; See also Vijay Pratap Singh v.
Dukh Haran Nath Singh, AIR 1962 SC 941].
23.13.If on a meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is
manifestly vexatious and without any merit, and does not disclose
a right to sue, the court would be justified in exercising the power
under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC.
23.14.The power under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC may be exercised by the
court at any stage of the suit, either before registering the plaint, or
after issuing summons to the defendant, or before State of
conclusion of the trial, as held by this Court in the judgment of
Saleem Bhai Maharashtra [Saleem Bhal v. State of Maharashtra,
(2003) 1 SCC 557]. The plea that once issues are framed, the
matter must necessarily go to trial was repelled by this Court in
Azhar Hussain case [Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, 1986 Supp
GAURAV SOROT
2026.10.31 11:48

CR-2416-2025 (O&M) -:9:-
SCC 315. Followed in Manvendrasinhji Ranjitsinhji Jadeja v.
Vijaykunverba, 1998 SCC Online Guj 281: (1998) 2 GLH 823).
23.15. The provision of Order 7, Rule 11 is mandatory in nature. It states
that the plaint "shall" be rejected if any of the grounds specified in
clauses (a) to (e) are made out. If the court finds that the plaint
does not disclose a cause of action, or that the suit is barred by any
law, the court has no option, but to reject the plaint".
6.1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in T. Arivandandam vs. T. V.
Satyapal and Another, (1977) 4 SCC 467 , has authoritatively delineated
the principles governing rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and held as under:-
"5.. The learned Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful not
formal reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and
meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he
should exercise his power under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC taking
care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if
clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it
in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly
under Order 10 CPC. An activist Judge is the answer to
irresponsible law suits..."
6.2. In the light of the aforesaid settled legal principles, the
question that arises for consideration is whether the Trial Court was
justified in dismissing the petitioners’ application under Order VII Rule 11
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The relevant extract of the impugned
order reads as under:-
8. Firstly as far as maintainability of oral gift is concerned, it
pertains to a procedural compliance and does not constitute a
valid ground for rejection of plaint under Order 7 rule 11 CPC.
GAURAV SOROT
2026.10.31 11:48

CR-2416-2025 (O&M) -:10:-
More so, the question of whether an oral gift is permissible or
legally valid is a substantive issue requiring interpretation of
personal laws, statutory provisions, and evidence. This issue goes
to the merits of the case and cannot be decided at the stage of
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dahiben v.
Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali, (2020) 7 SCC 366 clarified that
procedural objections or defences, including maintainability, must
be adjudicated during trial and do not constitute valid grounds for
rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
9. Secondly, coming to the ground that plaintiffs have no cause of
action. Upon perusal of the plaint, it is evident that the plaintiffs
have pleaded a detailed case regarding the oral gift. These
averments establish a prima facie cause of action. Moreso, the test
for determining the existence of a cause of action does not require
the Court to assess the merits or truthfulness of the allegations. As
held in Liverpool & London S.P. &l Association Ltd. v. M.V. Sea
Success 1, (2004) 9 SCC 512, the cause of action should be taken
at face value without delving into disputed questions of fact.
Further held that whether the plaint disclose a cause of action or
not, is essentially a question of effect. However. whether it does
or does not must be found from the reading of the plaint itself and
the averments made in the plant in their entirety must be held to
be correct. In other words, the plaint must be construed as it
stands, without addition or subtraction of words.
10. Thirdly, so far question of limitation is concerned, this court is
here guided by the dictum of law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case titled as 'Salim D. Agboatwala & Ors.,
Versus Shamal Ji Oddavji Thakkar and Others LL 2021 SC 476,
wherein, it has been held that the plaint cannot be rejected under
GAURAV SOROT
2026.10.31 11:48

CR-2416-2025 (O&M) -:11:-
Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC, if the limitation issue is a mixed
question of fact and law. In the case in hand, as well the question
of limitation is a mixed question of law and tac and can not be
decided at this stage without any evidence and therefore, the
plaint can not be rejected at this stage on this ground. Further,
coming to the question of suit barred under Order 1 Rule 9 CPC
for not impleading all partners is concerned, it is a procedural
defect and do not defeat the suit and can be adjudicated during the
trial proceedings.
11. Lastly, the applicant has sought rejection of plaint on the ground
of deficient advalorem Court fees. It has been argued by learned
counsel for applicant that the plaintiff have challenged the sale
deed no. 5883 dated 28.10.2024, and the value of the suit property
is Rs.7,65.00.000/-. Therefore, the plaintiffs are required to aflix
the court fee as per the value of the property. The Court here
placed reliance on case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs.
Randhir Singh and others, 2010(2) RCR (Civil) 564; 20102) Rai
436 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "6.
Where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he has to
seek cancellation of the deed. But if a non-executant seeks
annulment of a deed, he has to seek a declaration that the deed in
invalid, or nonest, or illegal or that it is not binding on him. The
difference between a prayer for cancellation and declaration in
regard to a deed of transfer/conveyance, can be brought out by the
following illustration relating to 'A' and 'B'- two brothers. 'A'
executes a sale deed in favour of 'C". Subsequently 'A' wants to
avoid the sale. 'A' has to sue for cancellation of the deed. On the
other hand, if B' who is not the executant of the deed, wants to
avoid it. he has to sue for a declaration that the deed executed by
GAURAV SOROT
2026.10.31 11:48

CR-2416-2025 (O&M) -:12:-
'A' is invalid/void and non-est/illegal and he is not bound by it. In
essence both may be suing to have the deed set aside or declared
as non-binding. But the florin is different and court fee is also
different. If 'A', the executant of the deed, seeks cancellation of
the deed, he has to pay advalorem, court fee on the consideration
stated in the sale deed. If B. who is a non executant, is in
possession and sues for a declaration that the deed is null or void
and does not bind him or his share, he has to merely pay a fixed
court fee of Rs. 19.50 under Article 17(iii) of Second Schedule of
the Act. But if B', a non-executant, is not in possession, and he
seeks not only a declaration that the sale deed is invalid, but also
the consequential relief of possession, he has to pay an ad-
valorem court fee as provided under Section 7(iv) (c) of the Act.
Section 7(iv)(c) provides that in suits for a declaratory decree
with consequential relief, the court fee shall be computed
according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the
plaint. The proviso thereto makes it clear that where the suit for
declaratory decree with consequential relief is with reference to
any property, such valuation shall not be less than the value of the
property calculated in the manner provided for by clause (v)of
Section 7." In the present suit, the plaintiffs are non-executant and
prima facie are in possession and has filed suit for a declaration
that the deed is null or void. Therefore, in view of authority cited
above, they has to merely pay a lixed nominal court fee.
6.3. In the present petition, the petitioners have assailed the
impugned order, contending that the respondent-plaintiff lacks locus standi
and a subsisting cause of action to maintain the suit, which is also alleged
to be barred by limitation. It is well settled that a plaint is liable to be
rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
GAURAV SOROT
2026.10.31 11:48

CR-2416-2025 (O&M) -:13:-
Procedure, 1908, where the statutory conditions for such rejection are
satisfied, including where the plaint, read as a whole, fails to disclose a
legally enforceable cause of action. In this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, in Tej Bahadur vs. Shri Narendra Modi, 2021(14) SCC 211 , has
held as under:-
“It is settled that where a person has no interest at all, or no sufficient
interest to support a legal claim or action he will have no locus standi to
sue. The entitlement to sue or locus standi is an internal part of cause of
action.”
7. In the present case, the respondent-plaintiff asserts right, title
and interest in the suit property exclusively on the basis of an alleged oral
gift of immovable property by Smt. Bindra Rani. In view of Section 123 of
the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the law enunciated by this Court in
Jagdev Singh vs. Ganga Devi (supra) and Chanan Singh vs. Pritam Kaur
and Another (supra), such an oral gift cannot confer a valid title to
immovable property. Since the respondent-plaintiff has founded its claim to
the suit property and the estate of Smt. Bindra Rani solely upon the alleged
oral gift, without asserting any independent legal basis for such
entitlement, the plaint fails to disclose a legally sustainable claim to the
estate in question. Consequently, the respondent-plaintiff lacks a legally
enforceable cause of action on the basis pleaded. Permitting the suit to
proceed to trial in these circumstances would serve no useful purpose and
would needlessly prolong litigation. The plaint is, therefore, liable to
rejection at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, on this ground.
GAURAV SOROT
2026.10.31 11:48

CR-2416-2025 (O&M) -:14:-
8. As regards limitation, it is well settled that the question
whether a suit is barred by limitation may involve a mixed question of law
and fact. Where such a bar cannot be conclusively established from the
averments contained in the plaint itself, rejection under Order VII Rule 11
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, would not be warranted on that
ground. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra
Murthy vs. Syed Jalal, 2017(13) SCC 174 , has held as under:-
7. The plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 if conditions
enumerated in the said provision are fulfilled. It is needless to
observe that the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be
exercised by the court at any stage of the suit. The relevant facts
which need to be looked into for deciding the application are the
averments of the plaint only. If on an entire and meaningful reading
of the plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and
meritless in the sense of not disclosing any right to sue, the court
should exercise power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Since the power
conferred on the court to terminate civil action at the threshold is
drastic, the conditions enumerated under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to
the exercise of power of rejection of plaint have to be strictly
adhered to. The averments of the plaint have to be read as a whole
to find out whether the averments disclose a cause of action or
whether the suit is barred by any law. It is needless to observe that
the question as to whether the suit is barred by any law, would
always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The
averments in the written statement as well as the contentions of the
defendant are wholly immaterial while considering the prayer of the
defendant for rejection of the plaint. Even when the allegations
made in the plaint are taken to be correct as a whole on their face
GAURAV SOROT
2026.10.31 11:48

CR-2416-2025 (O&M) -:15:-
value, if they show that the suit is barred by any law, or do not
disclose cause of action, the application for rejection of plaint can
be entertained and the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be
exercised. If clever drafting of the plaint has created the illusion of
a cause of action, the court will nip it in the bud at the earliest so
that bogus litigation will end at the earlier stage."
9. As regards limitation, although paragraphs 5 to 10 of the plaint
indicate that the respondent-plaintiff may have been aware of the Will
executed by Smt. Bindra Rani and the consequential mutations, no specific
date establishing such knowledge has been disclosed. Conversely,
paragraph 27 of the plaint specifically alleges that the cause of action arose
on 30.11.2024 and 09.12.2024, when the petitioners allegedly attempted to
interfere with the respondent-plaintiff’s possession and threatened to
transfer the suit property. The suit was instituted on 10.02.2025. In the
absence of unequivocal pleadings demonstrating that the suit is ex facie
barred by limitation, the issue requires adjudication. Accordingly, the Trial
Court rightly declined to reject the plaint on this ground.
9.1. The respondent-plaintiff’s claim is founded exclusively upon
an alleged oral gift of immovable property by Smt. Bindra Rani. In view of
Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, such a gift cannot
legally confer title in the absence of a duly executed and registered
instrument. Admittedly, no such instrument was executed in favour of the
respondent-plaintiff. Consequently, the alleged oral gift cannot furnish a
legally sustainable basis for the relief claimed, rendering the plaint
deficient in disclosing a legally enforceable cause of action. The
GAURAV SOROT
2026.10.31 11:48

CR-2416-2025 (O&M) -:16:-
respondent-plaintiff’s locus standi to maintain the suit on the basis pleaded
is, therefore, unsustainable.
9.2. Accordingly, the present civil revision petition is allowed , and
the impugned order is set aside insofar as it declines to reject the plaint for
want of a legally enforceable cause of action under Order VII Rule 11(a)
CPC.
10. It is clarified that the observations made hereinabove are
confined strictly to the adjudication of the present petition and shall not be
construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the underlying
dispute or any substantive issue requiring determination in the main
proceedings. Nothing stated herein shall prejudice the rights or contentions
of either party in any other proceeding.
11. In view of the final disposal of the principal matter, all
pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of
accordingly. No further orders are called for.

( VIRINDER AGGARWAL )
30.10.2026 JUDGE
Gaurav Sorot
Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No
Whether reportable? Yes / No
GAURAV SOROT
2026.10.31 11:48