Amandeep Kaur vs Mohinder Kaur And Another

CR-8175-2026 (O&M) -:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
( 142 )
CR-8175-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 03.11.2026
AMANDEEP KAUR
… Petitioner
Versus
MOHINDER KAUR AND ANOTHER
... Respondents
-.-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Present:- Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate
for the petitioner.
-.-
VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)
1. The present revision petition has been preferred under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 151 CPC, invoking the
supervisory jurisdiction of this Court to assail the order dated 01.10.2026
(Annexure P-5) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Khadur
Sahib, District Tarn Taran, in Civil Suit No. 172 of 2025, titled Mohinder
Kaur and another vs. Amandeep Kaur and another, whereby the petitioner-
defendant No. 1’s application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section
151 CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint, was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that clever
drafting of the plaint cannot, by itself, circumvent the bar of limitation or
revive an otherwise time-barred claim. It was submitted that, as averred in
para No.3 of the plaint, after the demise of Nazar Singh, husband of
GAURAV SOROT
2026.11.04 16:50
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

CR-8175-2026 (O&M) -:2:-
petitioner-defendant No. 1, the plaintiff, in connivance with the revenue
officials, allegedly procured sanction of mutations bearing Nos. 4367 and
2744 on the basis of an unregistered Will dated 16.05.1990, without
properly acknowledging the plaintiff’s entitlement, and secured only a
marginal share in favour of plaintiff No. 1. Learned counsel further
submitted that the husband of petitioner-defendant No. 1 was a minor at
the relevant time and plaintiff No. 1 was his legal guardian; hence, the
alleged sanction of mutations on the basis of the Will was well within the
plaintiff’s knowledge. Consequently, the suit, having been instituted after
an inordinate delay, was ex-facie barred by limitation and the plaint was
liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Reliance was placed
upon Raghwendra Sharan Singh vs. Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead) by
LRs, 2019 INSC 357, and Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali
(Gajra) (D) Thr. LRs & Ors., 2020 INSC 450 . Accordingly, allowance of
the present petition was sought.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and, with his
able assistance, having meticulously scrutinised the paper-book, this Court
proceeds to examine the controversy.
4. It is well settled that, while considering an application under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court must confine its scrutiny to the
averments contained in the plaint, read as a whole. A perusal of para No.7
of the plaint reveals that the respondent-plaintiff seeks to reckon the
commencement of limitation from the date of acquiring knowledge of the
mutations whereby the suit land was transferred in favour of the
defendants.
GAURAV SOROT
2026.11.04 16:50
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

CR-8175-2026 (O&M) -:3:-
5. In the present case, the assertion that the husband of
petitioner-defendant No. 1 was a minor at the relevant time and that
respondent-plaintiff No. 1 had procured sanction of the impugned
mutations while acting as his legal guardian does not find mention in the
plaint. Such factual assertions, therefore, cannot be imported into the
pleadings to establish, at the threshold, that the respondent-plaintiff had
knowledge of the mutations from the date of their sanction. In these
circumstances, the question of limitation constitutes a mixed question of
law and fact, warranting examination of the attending circumstances and
appreciation of evidence. The Trial Court has, therefore, rightly declined
to reject the plaint at the threshold and left the issue to be adjudicated upon
framing of an appropriate issue and affording the parties an opportunity to
lead evidence.
5.1. In Raghwendra Sharan Singh’s case (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court reiterated that clever drafting cannot be employed to
circumvent the law of limitation and that a plaint is liable to rejection
where the statutory bar is apparent from its own averments. However, the
said judgment is distinguishable, as the petitioner’s plea of prior
knowledge is founded upon factual assertions concerning the alleged
guardianship and the circumstances surrounding the sanction of the
mutations, which are not borne out from the plaint and would require
evidentiary determination.
5.2. Similarly, in Dahiben’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme
Court emphasised that the plaint must be examined meaningfully and in its
entirety, and that a suit ex-facie barred by law cannot be permitted to
GAURAV SOROT
2026.11.04 16:50
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

CR-8175-2026 (O&M) -:4:-
proceed merely on the strength of clever drafting. Nevertheless, the said
decision is distinguishable on the facts of the present case, as the alleged
bar of limitation is not conclusively discernible from the plaint and its
determination necessitates adjudication of disputed factual matters.
6. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no
illegality, perversity or material infirmity in the impugned order
warranting interference in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the present revision
petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed .
7. It is clarified that the observations made herein are confined
strictly to the adjudication of the present proceedings and shall not be
construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the underlying
dispute or as prejudicing the rights, claims or contentions of either party.
The same shall not be construed as a determination of any substantive
question of fact or law arising in the main proceedings.
8. In view of the final adjudication of the principal matter, all
pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of
accordingly. No further orders are warranted.

( VIRINDER AGGARWAL )
03.11.2026 JUDGE
Gaurav Sorot
Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No
Whether reportable? Yes / No
GAURAV SOROT
2026.11.04 16:50
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document