Pawan Kumar Seth vs Tejinder Singh And Ors

CR-4860-2026 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
121-1 CR-4860-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision: 28.10.2026
Pawan Kumar Seth ....Petitioner
Vs.
Tajinder Singh and others ....Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER
Present: Mr. Baljinder Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
*
HARSH BUNGER J. (Oral)
1. The present civil revision petition has been filed, under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside of the order dated
30.05.2026 (Annexure P-8) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior
Division), Amritsar, whereby an application filed by the present petitioner
under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed.
2. Briefly, respondent No. 1 – plaintiff (Tejinder Singh) filed a
suit for permanent injunction against the present petitioner (Pawan Kumar
Seth) as well as the proforma respondents herein, for restraining them from
interfering into his peaceful possession and from dispossessing him forcibly
and illegally, except in due course of law, from the tenanted premises
consisting of first floor portion of building bearing No.737/4-13 at Bazar
Darshani Deori, Gali Fakir Khana, Bazar Kaserian, Amritsar.
2.1 The present petitioner appeared in the aforesaid suit and filed a
counter-claim, wherein he also prayed for issuance of permanent injunction
by making the following averment in para 4 thereof:
ANKIT
2026.11.03 11:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Chandigarh

CR-4860-2026 (O&M) -2-
“That the counter claimants have purchased the property in an
open auction by the bank and as per the sale certificate the
defendants no 1 and 2/ counter claimants have purchased the
entire property including the demised premises and as per the
sale certificate, the present defendants no. 1 and 2/ counter
claimants have become the owners in possession of the entire
property including the tenanted premises (copy of sale
certificate enclosed herewith for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble
Court.)”
2.2 Subsequently, the present petitioner filed an application under
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC (Annexure P-5), seeking rejection of plaint filed by
respondent No. 1 / plaintiff.
2.3 The aforesaid application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC
(Annexure P-5) filed by the present petitioner came to be opposed by
respondent No. 1 / plaintiff.
3. The learned Trial Court, upon consideration of the aforesaid
application, dismissed the same vide impugned order dated 30.05.2026
(Annexure P-8).
4. In the aforementioned circumstances, the present civil revision
petition has been filed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
paperbook with his able assistance.
6. In the present case, respondent No. 1–plaintiff filed a suit for
permanent injunction against the present petitioner as well as the proforma
respondents herein. The petitioner appeared in the said suit and filed his
counter-claim and subsequently filed an application (Annexure P-5) under
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint, primarily on the
ANKIT
2026.11.03 11:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Chandigarh

CR-4860-2026 (O&M) -3-
ground that the suit was barred under the provisions of Section 14, 17 and 34
of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
6.1 The aforesaid plea of the petitioner was opposed by respondent
No. 1 / plaintiff.
7. The learned Trial Court, vide impugned order dated 30.05.2026,
has dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC by observing as
under:-
“5. The perusal of the file shows that the plaintiff has filed
the present suit for permanent injunction for restraining the
defendants, their agents, associates, representatives, employees
etc. from interfering into peaceful possession of the plaintiff in
any manner or dispossessing the plaintiff forcibly and illegally
except in due course of law from the tenanted premises i.e. the
suit property or causing damage or demolition to the roof or
any other portion of the demised premises. On the other hand
the defendants no. 1 & 2 have filed the counterclaim for
permanent injunction restraining the plaintiff from making any
repair or construction in the fallen down portion occupied by
the plaintiff i.e. tenanted premises which forms the suit property
on the ground that the defendants no. 1 & 2 have purchased the
property in an open auction by the bank as per the sales
certificate and on the ground that the entire building including
the tenanted premises have become unfit and unsafe for human
habitation and the same can fall at any moment. By way of
present application under Order VII Rule 11 (d) CPC the
defendants no 1 & 2 have prayed for rejection of the plaint and
dismissal of the suit on the ground that the suit is barred under
Section 34 and 35 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The application
filed by the defendants no. 1 & 2 for rejection of plaint is not
coupled with any supporting document with regard to the
ANKIT
2026.11.03 11:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Chandigarh

CR-4860-2026 (O&M) -4-
SARFAESI proceedings being carried out under the SARFAESI
Act and the entire averments of the application in hand also do
not find any mention in the counterclaim filed by the defendants
no. 1 & 2 way back on 04.09.2018. Moreover, this suit as well
as the counterclaim in the present case has been filed only for
permanent injunction and no act in relation to the proceedings
carried out or being carried out under the SARFAESI Act have
been challenged in the case in hand. As such, the Court finds no
cogent and convincing reason to reject the plaint and dismiss
the suit without going into the merits of the same and merely on
the oral assertions of the defendants. Furthermore, the status
quo orders passed by the trial Court has been duly upheld by
the learned Appellate Court after appreciating the material
available on the record. The issue with regard to
maintainability of the suit can well be decided at the final stage
after appreciation of the evidence to be brought on record by
both the parties during the course of trial. As such, finding no
merits in the application in hand, the same is hereby
dismissed .”
8. At the outset, it is required to be noticed that the petitioner has
not placed on record a copy of the plaint nor the same has been shown at the
time of hearing of this petition, so as to enable this court to examine the
plaint. In these circumstances, this court has no option but to rely on the
observations made by the learned Trial court in the impugned order.
9. It is well established position that the power conferred upon the
Court under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is a drastic one and therefore, the
conditions enumerated therein are required to be strictly adhered to.
9.1 In  “Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. v. Central Bank of
India and Another”, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 482 , wherein a three Judge
ANKIT
2026.11.03 11:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Chandigarh

CR-4860-2026 (O&M) -5-
bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, while considering the plea of
rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, observed as under:-
"18. It is clear that in order to consider Order 7 Rule 11, the
court has to look into the averments in the plaint and the same
can be exercised by the trial court at any stage of the suit. It is
also clear that the averments in the written statement are
immaterial and it is the duty of the Court to scrutinize the
averments/pleas in the plaint. In other words, what needs to be
looked into in deciding such an application are the averments in
the plaint. At that stage, the pleas taken by the defendant in the
written statement are wholly irrelevant and the matter is to be
decided only on the plaint averment. These principles have been
reiterated in Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. v. Ganesh Property,
(1998) 7 SCC 184 and Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. v. Vessel M.V.
Fortune Express, (2006) 3 SCC 100."
10. Evidently, the petitioners also preferred an application under
Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint, inter alia, on
the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the same in
light of the provisions of The Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred
to as 'the 2002 Act'), especially in view Sections 34 and 35 of the 2002 Act.
10.1 Section 34 of the 2002 Act provides that no Civil Court shall
have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter
which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered
by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any
Court or other authority in respect of any such action. Section 35 of the 2002
Act provides that the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding
ANKIT
2026.11.03 11:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Chandigarh

CR-4860-2026 (O&M) -6-
anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being
in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law.
10.2 Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Central Bank of India and another
v. Prabha Jain and others”, (2025) 4 SCC 38, in somewhat similar
circumstances after referring to certain previous adjudication of its on the
issue, has been pleased to hold that the Debt Recovery Tribunal is a creature
of the RDB Act of 1993 and is empowered to exercise powers under that act
and the SARFAESI Act of 2002. The Tribunal is bound by the powers
conferred to it by the Parliament.
10.3 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. Ramesh
Chander Agarwal, (2003) 6 SCC 220 , has explained that bar of jurisdiction
of a Civil Court is not to be readily inferred and such a provision requires
strict interpretation. Hon'ble Court has held that the Court would lean in
favour of construction which would uphold the retention of Civil Courts
jurisdiction.
11. Coming to the case in hand, the petitioner has not produced any
material as regards proceedings carried out under the 2002 Act. Further, the
suit has been filed for seeking permanent injunction and no act in relation to
the proceedings carried out or being carried out under the 2002 Act have
been challenged in the suit.
11.1 Further, as regards the objection regarding maintainability of
suit,  Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “Ajay Solanki vs.
Parvesh Kumar”, (Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.13655 of 2024, decided
on 11.07.2024 , has held that the objection of maintainability of suit would
not strictly fall within the ambit of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
ANKIT
2026.11.03 11:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Chandigarh

CR-4860-2026 (O&M) -7-
12. I have carefully perused the paperbook as well as the impugned
order and in view of the above discussion, I see no cogent reason which may
warrant interference by this Court in the present proceedings.
13. Resultantly, the present revision petition fails and the same is
accordingly, dismissed .
14. All the pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed.
(HARSH BUNGER)
28.10.2026 JUDGE
Ankit
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
ANKIT
2026.11.03 11:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Chandigarh