SURJEET SINGH Vs. NACHHATTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has assailed the order dated 11.08.2017 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Talwandi Sabo whereby the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC filed by him was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that they are owners of the land in question and the mutations of redemption's and sales are illegal and void. Consequent relief of possession has also been sought in the suit. Earlier an application was filed by defendant No. 5 on the ground of insufficiency of court fee affixed on the memorandum of the suit. Non-executant not in possession sought possession of the suit land besides seeking declaration in respect of agricultural land. The trial Court found that the case of the plaintiffs was covered under the 3rd principle as laid down in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh and others, 2010(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 564. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 26.10.2015. The second application was preferred by defendant No. 7/petitioner on the ground of want of cause of action and non-maintainability of the suit.

(3.) Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of ratio of The Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society, represented by its Chairman v. M/s Ponniamman Educational Trust represented by its Chairperson/Managing Trustee, 2012(3) CivCC 651, drafting of vexatious and meritless pleadings by way of clever mechanism would not stop the Court from considering the applicability of Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. The suit is barred in terms of section 34 of the Specific Relief Act (for short 'the Act'). The mutations have been challenged without making any challenge to the mortgages and the sale deeds, therefore, the plaint would not give any cause of action in favour of the plaintiffs.