(1.) By way of present petition, the petitioners/defendants, who had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of plaint, have laid challenge to the order dtd. 20/9/2025 passed by learned Civil Judge, Court No.(5), Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. in CMA No.1996 of 2025, whereby their application was rejected.
(2.) It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioners, hereinafter to be referred as defendants, that learned trial Court has erred while rejecting the application and as per settled preposition of law, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be filed at any stage and this Court can exercise its revisional jurisdiction to correct the error.
(3.) The respondents/plaintiffs, hereinafter referred as plaintiffs have preferred a suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants in the year 2007. The decree, which is sought in the suit, is to the effect that deceased Mangal Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs had jointly succeeded the non-occupancy rights in the suit land to the extent of half share along-with Shri Basant Singh and further declaration to the effect that plaintiffs have succeeded the tenancy rights of deceased Mangal Singh qua the suit land to the extent of half share. It has also been prayed thata decree for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are successors in interest qua the suit land on the ground that non-occupancy tenancy rights in the suit land could not be bequeathed in favour of the defendants nor the defendants could be succeeded the non-occupancy tenancy rights in the suit land. Further declaration has been sought to the effect that mutation No.22 dtd. 19/6/2006 of Mauja Mewag, Tehsil and District Shimla, is wrong, illegal and unlawful and is not bindings upon the plaintiffs. Further, a decree for injunction has been sought restraining the defendants from interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land.