The High Court
Case Details
(O&M) CR-5832-2025 (O&M) -1- - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR CR-5832-2025 (O&M) Decided on :- 27.08.2025 Decided on : and Another Nidhi Singla and Another ....Petitioners VERSUS Girish Anmol Sood and Others Girish Anmol Sood ....Respondents MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON'BLE M Present: Mr. Aayush Gupta, Mr. Aayush Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner Advocate for the petitioners. MANDEEP PANNU J. MANDEEP PANNU -.- 1. Present civil revision petition has been directed against the order Present civil revision petition has been directed against the order Present civil revision petition has been directed against the order Present civil revision petition has been directed against the order dated 21.05.2025 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge ( Ludhiana, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana whereby an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by whereby an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by whereby an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by whereby an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by the the the the
Facts
No. 5 and 6 for rejection of the plaint was dismissed. petitioners/defendants No. 5 and 6 for rejection of the plaint was dismissed. petitioners/defendant Brief Facts 2. The plaintiff, Girish Anmol Sood, The plaintiff, Girish Anmol Sood, The plaintiff, Girish Anmol Sood, instituted a suit seeking instituted a suit seeking 2023 executed by his father, Anmol Sood cancellation of sale deed dated 17.07.2023 executed by his father, Anmol Sood 2023 executed by his father, Anmol Sood cancellation of sale deed dated (defendant No.1) in favour of defendant No.2, which was subsequently followed (defendant No.1) in favour of defendant No.2, which was subsequently followed (defendant No.1) in favour of defendant No.2, which was subsequently followed (defendant No.1) in favour of defendant No.2, which was subsequently followed by further transfers in favour of the present petitioners/defendant Nos.5 and 6. by further transfers in favour of the present petitioners/defendant Nos.5 by further transfers in favour of the present petitioners/defendant Nos.5 3. 2023 as being illegal The plaintiff assailed the sale deed dated 17.07.2023 as being illegal The plaintiff assailed the sale deed dated The plaintiff assailed the sale deed dated on the ground that the same was executed during the pendency of an earlier suit on the ground that the same was executed during the pendency of an earlier suit on the ground that the same was executed during the pendency of an earlier suit on the ground that the same was executed during the pendency of an earlier suit filed by him seeking declaration of ownership and permanent injunction in respect filed by him seeking declaration of ownership and permanent injunction in respect filed by him seeking declaration of ownership and permanent injunction in respect filed by him seeking declaration of ownership and permanent injunction in respect of the same property, property, which is still sub judice. 4. No.5 and 6 filed an application under The petitioners/defendants No.5 and 6 filed an application under No.5 and 6 filed an application under The petitioners/defendant Order VII Rule 11 CPC contending that the present suit is without any cause of Order VII Rule 11 CPC contending that the present suit is without any cause of Order VII Rule 11 CPC contending that the present suit is without any cause of Order VII Rule 11 CPC contending that the present suit is without any cause of e suit action and liable to be rejected. It was submitted that ownership of the suit action and liable to be rejected. It was submitted that ownership of th action and liable to be rejected. It was submitted that ownership of th TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.01 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CR-5832-2025 (O&M) -2- - property has not yet been adjudicated in the earlier suit and, therefore, the present property has not yet been adjudicated in the earlier suit and, therefore, the present property has not yet been adjudicated in the earlier suit and, therefore, the present property has not yet been adjudicated in the earlier suit and, therefore, the present challenge to the subsequent transfer is premature. It was further submitted that challenge to the subsequent transfer is premature. It was further submitted that challenge to the subsequent transfer is premature. It was further submitted that challenge to the subsequent transfer is premature. It was further submitted that since the impugned sale deed was executed during pendency of the earlier suit, the since the impugned sale deed was executed during pendency of the earlier suit, the since the impugned sale deed was executed during pendency of the earlier suit, the since the impugned sale deed was executed during pendency of the earlier suit, the 1882 (for principle of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for principle of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act principle of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act already applies, and consequently, the fresh suit is barred in law short, ‘the Act’) already applies, and consequently, the fresh suit is barred in law already applies, and consequently, the fresh suit is barred in law short, ‘the Act’) and liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. and liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. and liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 5. laintiff submitted that the application was In reply, the respondent/plaintiff submitted that the application was laintiff submitted that the application was In reply, the respondent/p not maintainable. It was pleaded that the plaint discloses a clear and independent not maintainable. It was pleaded that the plaint discloses a clear and independent not maintainable. It was pleaded that the plaint discloses a clear and independent not maintainable. It was pleaded that the plaint discloses a clear and independent cause of action, namely challenge to the legality of a specific transfer by way of cause of action, namely challenge to the legality of a specific transfer by way of cause of action, namely challenge to the legality of a specific transfer by way of cause of action, namely challenge to the legality of a specific transfer by way of ent event not covered by the earlier sale deed dated 17.07.2023, which is a subsequent event not covered by the earlier ent event not covered by the earlier sale deed dated suit. Whether the plaintiff ultimately succeeds or not is a matter of trial, but at this suit. Whether the plaintiff ultimately succeeds or not is a matter of trial, but at this suit. Whether the plaintiff ultimately succeeds or not is a matter of trial, but at this suit. Whether the plaintiff ultimately succeeds or not is a matter of trial, but at this is not one of the stage, the plaint cannot be rejected. The plea of lis pendens is not one of the stage, the plaint cannot be rejected. The plea of stage, the plaint cannot be rejected. The plea of can be raised in the written grounds available under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and can be raised in the written grounds available under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and grounds available under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and statement to be adjudicated on merits. statement to be adjudicated on merits. Findings of the Trial Court Findings of the Trial Court 6. ourt, after hearing both sides, observed that a plaint The learned trial Court, after hearing both sides, observed that a plaint ourt, after hearing both sides, observed that a plaint The learned trial C can be rejected only on the grounds specifically mentioned under Order VII Rule can be rejected only on the grounds specifically mentioned under Order VII Rule can be rejected only on the grounds specifically mentioned under Order VII Rule can be rejected only on the grounds specifically mentioned under Order VII Rule CPC. The main contention of the defendants was that the suit is barred by the 11 CPC. The main contention of the defendants was that the suit is barred by the CPC. The main contention of the defendants was that the suit is barred by the CPC. The main contention of the defendants was that the suit is barred by the doctrine of lis pendens since ownership is sub judice in the earlier suit and the lis pendens since ownership is sub judice in the earlier suit and the since ownership is sub judice in the earlier suit and the impugned transfer was made pendente lite. However, the C impugned transfer was ma ourt held that being hit de pendente lite. However, the Court held that being hit is not one of the enumerated grounds under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. by lis pendens is not one of the enumerated grounds under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. is not one of the enumerated grounds under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. is not one of the enumerated grounds under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 7. applies or It was further held that whether the doctrine of lis pendens applies or It was further held that whether the doctrine of It was further held that whether the doctrine of not can be considered at the stage of trial upon framing of issues and leading of not can be considered at the stage of trial upon framing of issues and leading of not can be considered at the stage of trial upon framing of issues and leading of not can be considered at the stage of trial upon framing of issues and leading of ce, discloses a cause of action to challenge a evidence. The plaint, on its face, discloses a cause of action to challenge a ce, discloses a cause of action to challenge a evidence. The plaint, on its fa TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.01 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CR-5832-2025 (O&M) -3- - particular transfer, and hence cannot be rejected at the threshold. Accordingly, the particular transfer, and hence cannot be rejected at the threshold. Accordingly, the particular transfer, and hence cannot be rejected at the threshold. Accordingly, the particular transfer, and hence cannot be rejected at the threshold. Accordingly, the application was dismissed. application was dismissed. Findings 8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and carefully gone I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and carefully gone I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and carefully gone I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and carefully gone through the record. through the reco 9. The facts are not much in dispute. The plaintiff earlier filed a suit The facts are not much in dispute. The plaintiff earlier filed a suit The facts are not much in dispute. The plaintiff earlier filed a suit The facts are not much in dispute. The plaintiff earlier filed a suit seeking declaration of ownership and permanent injunction in respect of the suit seeking declaration of ownership and permanent injunction in respect of the suit seeking declaration of ownership and permanent injunction in respect of the suit seeking declaration of ownership and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. During pendency of that suit, defendant No.1 executed sale deed dated property. During pendency of that suit, defendant No.1 executed sale deed dated property. During pendency of that suit, defendant No.1 executed sale deed dated property. During pendency of that suit, defendant No.1 executed sale deed dated avour of defendant No.2, which was followed by further transfers 17 July 2023 in favour of defendant No.2, which was followed by further transfers avour of defendant No.2, which was followed by further transfers 17 July 2023 in f to defendant Nos.5 and 6. The present suit has been filed specifically challenging to defendant Nos.5 and 6. The present suit has been filed specifically challenging to defendant Nos.5 and 6. The present suit has been filed specifically challenging to defendant Nos.5 and 6. The present suit has been filed specifically challenging that subsequent transfer. that subsequent transfer. 10. The only question before this Court is whether the plaint is liable to be The only question before this Court is whether the plaint is liable to be The only question before this Court is whether the plaint is liable to be The only question before this Court is whether the plaint is liable to be ected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the sale deed in question rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the sale deed in question ected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the sale deed in question ected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the sale deed in question is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens. is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens. 11. specific grounds for Order VII Rule 11 CPC enumerates following specific grounds for Order VII Rule 11 CPC enumerates Order VII Rule 11 CPC enumerates rejection of plaint:- rejection of plaint: (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (a) where it does not disclose a cause of act (a) where it does not disclose a cause of act (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is ed upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being ed upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being return paper within a required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.01 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document barred by any law; barred by (O&M) CR-5832-2025 (O&M) -4- - (e) where it is not filed in duplicate; (e) where it is not filed in duplicate; (e) where it is not filed in duplicate; (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9 (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9 (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9 12. The scope of this provision has been explained in a catena of The scope of this provision has been explained in a catena of The scope of this provision has been explained in a catena of The scope of this provision has been explained in a catena of
Legal Reasoning
judgments. It is well settled that while considering an judgments. It is application under Order VII settled that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only the averments in the plaint are to be looked into and not the Rule 11 CPC, only the averments in the plaint are to be looked into and not the Rule 11 CPC, only the averments in the plaint are to be looked into and not the Rule 11 CPC, only the averments in the plaint are to be looked into and not the defence set up by the defendants. defence set up by the defendants. 13. The plaint in the present case specifically avers that the cause of The plaint in the present case specifically avers that the cause of The plaint in the present case specifically avers that the cause of The plaint in the present case specifically avers that the cause of ant No.1 executed sale deed dated action arose to the plaintiff when defendant No.1 executed sale deed dated ant No.1 executed sale deed dated action arose to the plaintiff when defend 17.07.2023 during pendency of earlier proceedings, allegedly in conspiracy 2023 during the pendency of earlier proceedings, allegedly in conspiracy pendency of earlier proceedings, allegedly in conspiracy with defendants, in order to defeat the rights of the plaintiff. It is further pleaded with defendants, in order to defeat the rights of the plaintiff. It is further pleaded with defendants, in order to defeat the rights of the plaintiff. It is further pleaded with defendants, in order to defeat the rights of the plaintiff. It is further pleaded intention. These that transfers were made through collusion and mala fide intention. These that transfers were made through collusion and mala fide that transfers were made through collusion and mala fide averments, on their face, disclose a cause of action. averments, on their face, disclose a cause of action. averments, on their face, disclose a cause of action. 14. The plea raised by petitioners/defendants No.5 and 6 The plea raised by petitioners that the transfer /defendants No.5 and 6 that the transfer is hit by lis pendens may or may not ultimately succeed, but it does not take away lis pendens may or may not ultimately succeed, but it does not take away may or may not ultimately succeed, but it does not take away f to file a suit challenging the transfer. Thus, the argument the right of the plaintiff to file a suit challenging the transfer. Thus, the argument f to file a suit challenging the transfer. Thus, the argument the right of the plaintif that the plaint is barred by lis pendens is misconceived. that the plaint is barred by lis pendens is misconceived. that the plaint is barred by lis pendens is misconceived. 15. If the petitioners/defendants No.5 and 6 If the petitioners contend that multiplicity of /defendants No.5 and 6 contend that multiplicity of suits is created or that subsequent suit is unnecessary, they may raise such pleas in suits is created or that subsequent suit is unnecessary, they may raise such pleas in suits is created or that subsequent suit is unnecessary, they may raise such pleas in suits is created or that subsequent suit is unnecessary, they may raise such pleas in their written statement and invite a decision on merits. But at the threshold, the their written statement and invite a decision on merits. But at the threshold, the their written statement and invite a decision on merits. But at the threshold, the their written statement and invite a decision on merits. But at the threshold, the plaint cannot be rejected. plaint cannot be rejected. Conclusion 16.
Decision
above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the In view of the petitioners/defendants No.5 and 6 /defendants No.5 and 6 have failed to make out any for rejection of have failed to make out any case for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the following grounds the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the following grounds:- 1. action, namely the Firstly, the plaint discloses a clear cause of action, namely the Firstly, the plaint discloses a clear cause of challenge to a particular sale deed dated 17 July 2023. challenge to a particular sale deed dated 17 July 2023. challenge to a particular sale deed dated 17 July 2023. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.01 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CR-5832-2025 (O&M) -5- - 2. Secondly, the bar of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Act is lis pendens under Section 52 of the Act is not a ground under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The doctrine does not not a ground under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The doctrine does not not a ground under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The doctrine does not not a ground under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The doctrine does not at any transfer during extinguish the right to sue; it merely ensures that any transfer during extinguish the right to sue; it merely ensures th extinguish the right to sue; it merely ensures th pendency of a suit remains subject to the decree ultimately passed. pendency of a suit remains subject to the decree ultimately passed. pendency of a suit remains subject to the decree ultimately passed. 3. Thirdly, whether the transfer in question is to be annulled, or Thirdly, whether the transfer in question is to be annulled, or Thirdly, whether the transfer in question is to be annulled, or whether plaintiff’s rights are defeated, is a matter for trial. At this whether plaintiff’s rights are defeated, is a matter for trial. At this whether plaintiff’s rights are defeated, is a matter for trial. At this whether plaintiff’s rights are defeated, is a matter for trial. At this e thrown out. stage, the plaint cannot be thrown out. stage, the plaint cannot b 4. Fourthly, it is settled law that at the stage of Order VII Rule 11, Fourthly, it is settled law that at the stage of Order VII Rule 11, Fourthly, it is settled law that at the stage of Order VII Rule 11, the Court must proceed on the assumption that the plaint averments the Court must proceed on the assumption that the plaint averments the Court must proceed on the assumption that the plaint averments the Court must proceed on the assumption that the plaint averments are true. Only if from the plaint itself the suit is barred by law, are true. Only if from the plaint itself the suit is barred by law, are true. Only if from the plaint itself the suit is barred by law, are true. Only if from the plaint itself the suit is barred by law, aint does not suffer from any such rejection can follow. The present plaint does not suffer from any such rejection can follow. The present pl rejection can follow. The present pl defect. defect. 17. Accordingly, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the Accordingly, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the Accordingly, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the Accordingly, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 21.05.2025. The learned trial impugned order dated ourt has rightly dismissed the 2025. The learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 18. The present revision petition is dismissed The he impugned order vision petition is dismissed and the impugned order dated 21.05.2025 is upheld dated 21.05.2025 19. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 2025 August 27, 2025 tripti (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking speaking : Speaking Whether speaking/non : Yes/No : Yes/No Whether reportable Whether reportable TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.01 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document