KULWANT KAUR SIDHU Vs. MOHINDER PARTAP SINGH DHILLON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of impugned order dated 08.12.2016 (Annexure P-4) passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ferozepur, whereby, the application under Order 7, Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioner-defendant has been dismissed.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case as made out in the present revision petition are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a civil suit for decree of possession. During pendency of the suit, an application under Order 7, Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of plaint was filed by the petitioner-defendant and the same has been dismissed vide order dated 08.12016, which is subject matter of challenge in the present revision petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff is liable to be dismissed for misjoinder or nonjoinder of the parties. While passing the impugned order, the Court below has not appreciated the fact that the property in dispute was purchased by the petitioner-defendant for an amount of Rs.12 lacs from Seema Narula and Sudesh Narula. An amount of Rs.6 lacs was paid to Seema Narula and the remaining amount of Rs.6 lacs was paid to Sudesh Narula through cheques. Learned counsel further submits that the value of the suit property for the purpose of Court fee had wrongly been assessed and as such, the proper Court fee has not been affixed on the plaint and the suit was liable to be rejected only on this ground. The respondent-plaintiff had submitted that the portion of the property in dispute was in occupation of the petitioner-defendant and plaintiff had claimed the damages on account of use and occupation @ Rs.10,000.00 per month and for a period of 3 years, which comes to Rs.3,60,000.00. In the plaint, it has been mentioned that the disputed portion was demanded by the petitioner-defendant in the year 2005 and the suit was filed in the year 2016. There was gap of 11 years and damages on account of use and occupation @ Rs.10,000.00 comes to more than Rs.13,20,000.00. Learned counsel also submits that the suit was barred by law as the petitioner-defendant is not tenant or licencee of the disputed property as the property in dispute was purchased vide agreement dated 15.0201