SATWANT SINGH Vs. RANJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed challenging the order dtd. 2/2/2023 whereby the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by the defendant-petitioners herein has been dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff- respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant-petitioners, their agents, servants, attorneys or anybody else acting for and on their behalf from interfering in the peaceful and lawful possession of the plaintiff-respondents and/or dispossessing the plaintiff-respondents from the land measuring 06 acres 07 kanals 03 marlas having a frontage of about 2 acres, as described in the plaint in detail, situated at Pathankot GT Road, Village Noorpur, Tehsil and District Jalandhar. The defendantpetitioners filed an application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the suit for permanent injunction was not maintainable as the plaintiff-respondents are not in possession of the suit property. Further ground taken was that the suit has been filed on the basis of an unregistered agreement to sell dtd. 1/11/2017 and further that the plaintiff-respondents have not sought the relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell and since an efficacious remedy was available to them i.e. to file a suit for specific performance, as such, the suit was barred under Order VII Rule 11(D) CPC by virtue of Sec. 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. A reply was filed to the said application by the plaintiffrespondents and vide the impugned order the said application was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners would contend that since the plaintiff-respondents are not in possession and it is the defendant-petitioners who are in possession of the suit property, hence, the suit itself was not maintainable. It is further the argument that an unregistered agreement to sell has been relied upon by the plaintiffrespondents.