Rekha Mittal, J. - (1.) By invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the present petition directs challenge against order dated 28.1.2016 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dabwali whereby application filed by the petitioner under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short "CPC ") for rejection of the plaint, has been dismissed.
(2.) M/s Surja Ram and sons, Malout through Sh. Amar Kumar, its partner has filed a suit for declaration that plaintiff No. 1 is the owner in possession of land measuring 87 kanals 1 marla, detailed in head note of the plaint; the judgment and decree dated 1.8.1990 passed in Civil Suit titled "Bimla Devi v. Parlahad Kumar " and judgment and decree dated 8.9.1990 in Civil Suit titled "Amar Kumar and another v. Parlahad Kumar " are illegal, null and void, ineffective and inoperative on rights of plaintiff No. 1. Further challenge has been laid to mutation bearing No. 12862 sanctioned on the basis of judgment and decree dated 8.9.1990 with consequential relief of permanent injunction.
(3.) Bimla Devi, petitioner/defendant No. 1 filed the instant application primarily on the ground that earlier Ashok Kumar and Ashwani Kumar sons of Prahlad Kumar filed a suit claiming that land on which a Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory has been constructed and the business is being conducted in the name and style of M/s Surja Ram Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory, Mandi Kalanwali is owned and possessed by the plaintiffs to the extent of 1/2 share and the remaining share belongs to Amar Kumar. In the said suit, Amar Kumar was sued as a proforma defendant. The suit was dismissed on 5.3.2009 by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dabwali but in the said suit, Sh. Amar Kumar filed an admission statement admitting that half of the property is owned and possessed by the plaintiff and the other half share belongs to him, therefore, Sh. Amar Kumar in the present suit cannot contend that the entire land on which the factory exists is owned and possessed by him exclusively. Another plea raised by the petitioner is that challenge to the judgment and decree dated 8.9.1990 passed in Civil Suit No. 1394 of 1990 titled "Amar Kumar v. Pralahad Kumar " after lapse of 24 years is clearly barred by law of limitation, therefore, plaint is liable to be rejected by invoking clause (d) of Rule 11ORDER7 CPC.;