HARJINDER SINGH Vs. AMAR SINGH AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff has assailed order dated 17.08.2013 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Divn), Ludhiana whereby application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint filed by defendant No.2 has been rejected. Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against Ganda Singh, Harjinder Singh and Sikander Singh. Harjinder Singh and Sikander Singh are real brothers. Sikander Singh has already died. Plaintiff alleged that he along with his sons and defendant No.1 are joint owner in possession of property measuring 70 Kanals 12 Marlas situated in village Nizampur, District Ludhiana. Plaintiff is co-sharer with heirs of Gurdial Singh who was father of the plaintiff. After the death of Gurdial Singh, property has been mutated in the name of his legal heirs. In para no.5 of the plaint, allegations have been made against all the defendants. They have given threats in respect of use of electric motor power connection and are having evil eyes on the share of the plaintiff.

(2.) Defendant No.2 by filing written statement has contested the claim of the plaintiff by pleading that the answering defendant has nothing to do with the electric connection or the land and there is no dispute between plaintiff and defendant No.1 nor the answering defendant has issued any threat to the plaintiff. Defendant No.2 claimed that there is no lis between plaintiff and defendant No.2 and no cause of action arises for maintaining a suit against defendant No.2. He filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint qua him. In para no.2 of the application, the following recital has been made:-

(3.) Civil Judge (Jr. Divn), Ludhiana vide order dated 17.08.2013 dismissed the application filed by defendant No.2 on the premise that at this stage, only allegations in the plaint are to be seen and no record is available to accord satisfaction on the ground on which rejection of plaint is being sought. That is how, present revision petition came to be filed in this Court.