- (1.) By this common order, I am disposing of two civil revisions, i. e. C. R. No. 1944 of 2011 titled as Ansal Bulldwell Ltd. v. Mrs. Shalini Chhabra and others, and C. R. No. 2817 of 2011 titled as Sandeep Thareja and another v. Mrs. Shalini Chhabra and others, as both these revision petitions have arisen out of the same order of the trial Court. Respondents No. 1 and 2/plaintiffs have filed suit in which petitioner of C. R. No. 1944 of 2011 is defendant No. 1 whereas petitioners of C. R. No. 2817 of 2011 are defendants No. 5 and 6. In plaint Annexure P. 2, respondents No. 1 and 2 claimed various reliefs including relief of declaration and mandatory injunction. The relief of mandatory injunction claimed by the plaintiffs includes direction to defendant No. 1 to restore allotment of the suit plot to the plaintiffs and to cancel the allotment thereof in favour of defendant No. 2 and also to deliver possession of the suit plot to the plaintiffs, besides some other directions.
(2.) Defendant No. 1 moved application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'the CPC') for rejection of the plaint on the ground that suit for declaration and injunction is not maintainable and the plaintiffs have to file suit for possession of the suit plot by specific performance of the agreement.
(3.) Defendants No. 5 and 6 also moved application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC alleging that plaintiffs had to pay ad-valorem court fee in view of the relief claimed by them but plaintiffs have paid court fee of Rs. 25/- only and, therefore, the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed. It was also alleged that the suit is barred by Sections 34, 37, 38 and 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short, 'the Act').;