A civil revision challenging refusal to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was dismissed as withdrawn after the written statement had been filed; the High Court clarified that liberty remains to raise all available pleas at trial and directed the trial court to independently assess the matter. This judgment upholds established procedure and confirms the sequence of pleadings, reaffirming binding authority for subordinate courts in civil proceedings.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CR/336/2021 of Ranjit Singh Vs Shupinder Singh and Others |
| CNR | PHHC010161802021 |
| Date of Registration | 17-02-2021 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED (as withdrawn with liberty to raise pleas at trial) |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority for subordinate courts |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court noted the written statement had already been filed and, on counsel’s request, permitted withdrawal of the revision with liberty to raise all available pleas at trial. The trial court was directed to decide the suit independently on evidence. The established sequence of pleadings and approach to rejecting plaints was thus preserved and clarified. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioner-defendant sought rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; their application was dismissed by the trial court. A civil revision was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petitioner later requested withdrawal of the petition, as written statement was already on record, with liberty to raise pleas at trial. The High Court granted withdrawal and issued directions accordingly. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts under the jurisdiction of the Punjab & Haryana High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering similar procedural situations |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that, after filing a written statement, pleas for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC may not be entertained as a matter of procedure.
- Clarifies that withdrawal of a civil revision with liberty enables all contentions raised in the revision to be raised at trial.
- High Court’s directions require trial courts to independently hear and decide such matters on evidence, treating prior withdrawal as non-prejudicial.
- Counsel should note the stage-specific procedural bars and opportunities for further argument at trial, even after unsuccessful or withdrawn preliminary pleas.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court observed that since the written statement had already been filed by the defendant-petitioner, and on fair concession by counsel, the petition need not proceed.
- The court considered and recorded the counsel’s request for withdrawal, specifically preserving the petitioner’s right to raise any and all pleas during trial.
- The trial court was directed to hear both parties and decide the pending civil suit on merits based solely on the evidence led, without being influenced by prior proceedings.
- The ruling preserves and clarifies the procedural framework under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and the sequence of pleadings in civil litigation.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
- After filing the written statement, requested permission to withdraw the revision petition.
- Sought liberty to raise all pleas, as advanced in the revision, during the trial.
Respondent
Not expressly recited in the judgment.
Factual Background
The dispute arose in a civil suit where the petitioner (defendant) sought rejection of the plaint by filing an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mohali. The application was dismissed on 12.01.2021. The petitioner challenged this dismissal via a civil revision under Article 227 of the Constitution. However, as the written statement had already been filed, the petitioner requested withdrawal of the revision, seeking liberty to raise the pleas at trial. The High Court allowed the withdrawal with such liberty and directed the trial court to decide the suit independently.
Statutory Analysis
- Order VII Rule 11 CPC: Provision enables summary rejection of plaint at the threshold if it does not disclose cause of action, is barred by law, etc.
- Order 9 Rule 9 CPC: Pertains to restoration of petitions dismissed for non-prosecution.
- Section 151 CPC: Recognises inherent powers of the court to ensure ends of justice.
- Article 227 of the Constitution: Supervisory powers of High Courts over courts and tribunals within their jurisdiction.
- The judgment confirms procedural sequencing: once the written statement is on record, interlocutory prayers under Order VII Rule 11 are generally foreclosed, redirecting parties to trial for articulating their defence.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No separate concurring or dissenting opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- Restoration of the dismissed revision petition via separate application before withdrawal.
- Explicit recording of liberty to raise all pleas at trial upon withdrawal of the civil revision.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms and applies the established sequence and procedure in dealing with Order VII Rule 11 CPC applications and withdrawal of civil revision petitions.
Citations
No SCC / AIR / MANU or neutral citations are provided in this judgment text.