Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SH. PANKAJ ARORA:
DISTRICT JUDGE-16, CENTRAL DISTRICT:
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
CSDJ no. 73/26
CNR No. DLCT01-001363-2026
Sh. Pranav Jain ……........Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Anurag Gupta …........defendant
O R D E R
1. Vide this order, this court shall proceed to dispose of
an application U/o 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC moved on behalf of
defendant for rejection of the plaint.
2. It is submitted on behalf of defendant that the suit of
the plaintiff is liable to be rejected outrightly being barred by
law, as the statement of the defendant upon which the plaintiff
filed the present suit was made / stated by the defendant in
guardianship guardian petition filed by the defendant herein
against his wife namely Anjali Jain, which is registered as GP
No. 31/2025 titled as "Anurag Gupta vs Anjali Jain" pending
adjudication before Ld. Family Court, Central District, Tis
Hazari Courts, Delhi, the relevant excerpt i.e para no. 7 of the
guardianship petition is as under:-
"7. That Anjali Jain's extended family particular her brothers-
in-law, Sameer Jain and Pranav Jain have shown patterns of both physical
and mental abuse directed at petitioner and his immediate family. These
individuals have contributed to a toxic and unsafe household environment. It
is submitted that Anjali Jain's elder brother-in-law, routinely uses Anjali
Jain's government provided accommodation particularly when her posting
was in Gurugram for gatherings involving alcohol and smoking, often
CSDJ No. 73/26
Pranav Jain Vs. Anurag Gupta
Page no…….1
of 5
-- 1 of 5 --
inviting friends for late-night parties. These activities took place despite
petitioner's objections and led to repeated conflicts between petitioner and
Anjali Jain. The disregard for boundaries and inappropriate use of the
family home by these Relatives created a disruptive and hostile
atmosphere.”
3. It is further submitted that the present suit has been
filed solely on the basis of above statement, which is protected
by absolute privilege, and therefore, no civil action for damages
is maintainable. It is, therefore, prayed that the plaint filed by the
plaintiff be rejected as no cause of action ever arose. In support
of his submissions, Ld. Counsel for defendant has relied upon the
following authorities:-
1. Anil Chaudhary Vs. Yakult Danone India Pvt. Ltd.,
MANU/DE/3645/2018;
2. K. Daniel Vs. T. Hymavathy Amma, MANU/KE/0048/1985;
3. Atul Kumar Pandey Vs. Kumar Avinash, MANU/WB/
0557/2020.
4. The application is vehemently opposed on behalf of
plaintiff by filing written submissions wherein it is stated that for
adjudicating upon an application u/o 7 Rule 11 of CPC, the court
is only required to go through the averments made in the plaint.
The defence as set up by the defendant in his written statement is
not required to be looked into. In support of his submissions, Ld.
Counsel for plaintiff has relied upon the following authorities:
1. Sanjay Mishra Vs. GNCTD (2012) SCC OnLine Del 1779;
2. Augada Ram Shaha Vs. Nemai Chand Shaha (1896 ILR 23
CAL 867);
3. Dhiro Koch Vs. Gobinda Dev Mishra Bura Satria (65 IND.
CAS. 204);
4. Sushma Rani Vs. H. N. Nagaraja Rao (2020 SCC OnLine Kar
1913);
CSDJ No. 73/26
Pranav Jain Vs. Anurag Gupta
Page no…….2
of 5
-- 2 of 5 --
5. Thangavelu Chettiar Vs. Ponnammal (AIR 1996 Mad 363);
6. Satya Prakash Arya Vs. Syed Abid Jalali (CRMC No.
129/2017);
7. Sopullo Datta Naik Dessai Vs. Yeshwant Govind Dessai
(2009 SCC OnLine Bom 1400);
8. Prabhakaran Vs. Gangadharan (2006 SCC OnLine Ker 302);
9. Ram Jethmalani Vs. Subramaniam Swamy (2006 SCC OnLine
Del 14);
10. Rahim Bakhsh Vs. Bachcha Lal (1928 SCC OnLine All 246;
11. Madhuri Mukund Chitnis Vs. Mukund Martand Chitnis
(1990 SCC OnLine Bom 410);
12. Trichinopoly Ramaswami Ardhanani Vs. Kripa Shankar
Bhargava (1991 MPLJ 597); and
13. Dr. Sanjiv Bansal Vs. Dr. Manish Bansal (CS(OS) 649/2021)
of Hon’ble Delhi High Court.
5. This court has heard the arguments and perused the
record.
6. Admittedly, the plaintiff herein is not a party to the
civil suit bearing GP no. 31/2025 wherein alleged defamatory
statement has been made against him. Thus, it is apparent that
communication of alleged defamatory statement has already been
made to a third person. The question now arises as to whether
absolute privilege being claimed by the defendant can be
considered in an application u/o 7 Rule 11 of CPC.
7. It has been held in the case of Steel Authority of India
Ltd. Vs. Rameshwar Dass Bishan Dayal, 60 (1995) DLT 271,
275, 276 (DB) that:-
“It is well settled that while considering the application u/o 7,
Rule 11, CPC, the Court is not required to take into consideration the
defence set up by the defendant in his written statement. The question
whether the plaint discloses any cause of action is to be decided by looking
CSDJ No. 73/26
Pranav Jain Vs. Anurag Gupta
Page no…….3
of 5
-- 3 of 5 --
at the averments contained in the plaint itself and not the defence set up in
the written statement. What has to be seen is whether or not a meaningful
reading of the plaint discloses a cause of action. While considering the
application, the strength or weakness of the case of the plaintiff is not to be
seen.”
8. It has been held in the case of Shivrudra Shiviling
Pailwan Vs. Prakash Maharudhra Pailwan, 2003 AIHC 1504
(1506) (Bom) that:-
“It is well settled that a plaint under Clause (d) can be rejected
on the basis of the pleadings in the plaint and not by referring to materials
placed on record by the defendant in answer to the plaint.”
9. In a similar matter wherein allegations of defamation
have alleged to have been made in the pleadings, in case titled
Dr. Sanjiv Bansal Vs. Dr. Manish Bansal (supra) it has been held
by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi as under:-
“20. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has argued the
question of whether averments in the pleadings entail complete privilege. In
the opinion of this Court, determining that issue would need a consideration
of the defence that the defendant may likely take in his written statement,
including of privilege. However, that stage is yet to come. As noted herein
above, reliance has also been placed on a number of judgments to contend
that unfair onslaught on personal character amounts to cruelty and the
victim is entitled to seek damages. While it would be a question of merit
which would have to be seen in the light of the pleadings and evidence that
would come on record, once summons are issued, as to whether the
sentences as pointed out in the plaint and stated to have been incorporated in
the plaint filed by the defendant, are defamatory and whether the supply of
the copies of the plaint to a third party who is not a family member in a case
filed by the defendant to determine inter se rights of the family members in
respect of the estate of their late father, would amount to publication and
circulation. It would also be a matter of proof that the plaintiff had indeed
suffered mental agony and therefore, would be entitled to seek damages
from the defendant.”
10. It is, thus, clear that the question as to whether the
plaintiff had suffered mental agony on account of mere
mentioning of alleged defamatory statement against him vide
para no. 7 of Guardianship petition no. 31/25 filed by the
defendant herein and question as to whether such imputations are
covered under absolute privilege is a matter of trial and evidence.
The authorities relied upon by the defendant are not found to be
CSDJ No. 73/26
Pranav Jain Vs. Anurag Gupta
Page no…….4
of 5
-- 4 of 5 --
applicable in the peculiar facts of the present case.
11. In view of my foregoing discussion, this court is of
the opinion that no ground is made out for rejection of plaint u/o
7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC at this stage. Accordingly, the present
application u/o 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC moved on behalf of
defendant stands dismissed.
Announced in the open Court
on 20-08-2026
(PANKAJ ARORA)
DISTRICT JUDGE-16/ CENTRAL:
TIS HAZARI COURT:DELHI/ 20-08-2026
CSDJ No. 73/26
Pranav Jain Vs. Anurag Gupta
Page no…….5
of 5
-- 5 of 5 --