We have taken note that the grievance essentially put
forth by the respondents for which an application under
Order VII Rule 11 was filed, is that the appellant
herein, had not sought for an appropriate prayer to
declare the sale deeds dated 03.12.2015 and 26.02.2016 as
illegal, null and void and no court fee in that regard
was paid.
5. To that extent, we take note that the prayer, as
made, in any event, had been valued and the court fee has
been paid. Whether an appropriate prayer should have
sought, is a matter ultimately to be decided in the suit
and not an issue to be considered while deciding the
application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, in the manner
in which it had been done in the facts and circumstances
arising in the instant case.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No. 4221 of 2023
SAJJAN SINGH Vs JASVIR KAUR & ORS.
Dated: 06th July, 2023.
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also
the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the
appeal papers.
3. In a suit filed by the appellant herein, the
respondents filed an application under Order VII Rule 11
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’)
which was, at the first instance, dismissed by the Trial
Court through its order dated 30.10.2017. The respondents
were therefore before the High Court in a Revision
Petition. The High Court having considered the matter,
has through its order dated 25.03.2019, allowed the
Revision Petition, and as a consequence, the application
filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC was allowed and the
plaint was rejected. It is in that light, the appellant
is before this Court.
2
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties,
we have taken note that the grievance essentially put
forth by the respondents for which an application under
Order VII Rule 11 was filed, is that the appellant
herein, had not sought for an appropriate prayer to
declare the sale deeds dated 03.12.2015 and 26.02.2016 as
illegal, null and void and no court fee in that regard
was paid.
5. To that extent, we take note that the prayer, as
made, in any event, had been valued and the court fee has
been paid. Whether an appropriate prayer should have
sought, is a matter ultimately to be decided in the suit
and not an issue to be considered while deciding the
application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, in the manner
in which it had been done in the facts and circumstances
arising in the instant case. Therefore, to that extent,
we are of the opinion that the High court was not
justified.
6. Hence, the Order dated 25.03.2019 passed by the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh is set
aside. The Civil Suit bearing C.S. No. 192/2016 dated
26.09.2015 is restored to the file of the learned
Additional Civil Judge(SD),Khamnon, District Fatehgarh
Sahib, Punjab to proceed further in the matter.
7. The contentions, as put forth by the respondents
herein, in the Order VII Rule 11 application, is open to
be taken up in the written statement and the Trial Court
will frame appropriate issues in that regard and all
contentions are left open for the parties to be urged in
that regard.
8. Appeal is accordingly disposed of along with the
pending application(s), if any.
...................J.
(A.S. BOPANNA)
...................J.
(M.M. SUNDRESH)
New Delhi
06th July, 2023
No comments:
Post a Comment