High Court of Delhi was dealing with the petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution against an order dated 13.09.2021 passed by which the learned Senior Civil Judge has rejected the application of the petitioner-defendants herein under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
Brief Facts:
The plaintiffs claimed to be the owners in possession of undivided shares in a land. As against the petitioners, the plaintiffs’ principal claim is for a declaration against a sale deed executed by one M/s. G.S. Kashyap and Sons (HUF) in favour of the petitioner No.1 herein, and as also an injunction against the petitioners from creating third-party interests in the said land. The plaintiffs also made three applications for injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. The petitioners filed a written statement and thereafter also made an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. In the said application, the petitioners contended that the plaintiffs had filed no title documents in support of their claim of ownership and had only filed revenue records which were insufficient to establish title. By the impugned order dated 13.09.2021, the learned Trial Court has rejected the petitioners’ application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
Petitioner’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order suffers from a manifest error, inasmuch as the learned Trial Court has failed to consider the insufficiency of the documents placed by the plaintiffs in support of their claim in respect of their title to the suit property. He pointed out that, by a separate order of the same date, the Trial Court had rejected the applications of the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, finding that the plaintiffs had failed to make out a prima facie case in their favour. He submitted that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is inconsistent with the order passed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC.
HC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides Court stated that it is well settled that, for the purposes of rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court is duty bound to consider the contents of the plaint, and not to examine the sufficiency of the evidence or the defence put forth by the defendant.
Court found that the Trial Court has cogently analysed the grounds taken by the petitioners and come to a conclusion that they do not fall within the scope of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. HC stated that Court do not find any jurisdictional defect or perversity in the said order to attract the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
HC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the Court held that “for the purposes of an order under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court must come to the conclusion that the plaint is required to be rejected i.e., that the suit must terminate right there. In the plaintiffs’ applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, however, the examination is as to whether a prima facie case has been established by the plaintiffs in their favour. As in the present case, it is quite possible that the Court would find against the plaintiffs on the question of prima facie case and yet find that the plaint is not liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.”
HC rejected the petition.
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prateek Jalan
Case Title: Capital Land Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Shiv Kumar Jindad & Ors.
Case Details: CM(M) 69/2022
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments