Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Can't Be Rejected Due To Missing Khasra Numbers In Eviction Petition: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the omission of certain khasra numbers in an eviction petition does not amount to non-disclosure of cause of action and cannot be a ground for dismissal under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Rejecting the tenant's contention, Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “Mere non-mention of certain khasra numbers per se cannot be so fatal so as to throw the petitioners in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code on the count that the petition did not disclose any cause of action.”

The dispute arose from rent proceedings initiated by landlord Chaman Lal Vaidya against tenants Puran Prakash Goel and another under the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act. The tenants challenged two orders passed by the Rent Controller.

Firstly, an application filed by the tenants under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC seeking dismissal of the eviction petition on the grounds that it was vague, incomplete, as it did not contain details of the demised premises and disclosed no cause of action was dismissed.

Secondly, they opposed an application filed by the landlords under Section 151 of CPC to carry out amendments in the eviction petition, for the addition of missing details in the eviction petition.

However, the application filed by the tenants was dismissed by the rent controller and the application of the landlords was allowed. Aggrieved, the tenants approached the High Court.

The Court remarked that the “cause of action is the bundle of facts which a party has to prove in order to obtain a decree in its favour. Therefore, mere remiss in mentioning the khasra numbers cannot be said to be equivalent to non-disclosure of the cause of action at all in an eviction petition.”

Further, the Court upheld the Rent Controller's decision to allow amendments under Section 151 CPC and stated that this was done in the interest of justice and to avoid the multiplicity of litigation. If it was not allowed, the landowner would have withdrawn the petition with liberty to file fresh.

Thus, the High Court dismissed the petitions and held that it found no reason to interfere with the order of the rent controller.

Case Name: Puran Prakash Goel & another v/s Chaman Lal Vaidya

Case No.: CMPMO No. 674 of 2022 a/w CMPMO No. 70 of 2023

Date of Decision: 08.08.2025

For the Petitioner: Mr. H.S. Rangra, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Present None

Click Here To Read/Download Order