Interim Order 14

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 15 CS DJ 871/24
VED PRAKASH (SENIOR CITIZEN)
Vs.
DEEPAK KUMAR
10.08.2026
Present :- Sh. R. K. Singh and Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Ld.
counsels for the plaintiff.
Sh. Pawan Prakash Sharma, Ld. counsel for the
defendant alongwith defendant.
Heard arguments on the application under Order VII
Rule 11 CPC.
Put up for orders at 4:00 p.m.
(Shagun Sharma)
DJ-12 Central, THC,
Delhi/10.08.2026
At 4:00 p.m.
Present:- None.
Vide this order, this court shall dispose of the
application filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
It is submitted on behalf of the defendant that the plaint does not
disclose a cause of action and is also liable to rejected as the
plaintiff has failed to disclose the capacity in which the plaintiff
claims the possession of over the suit property. It is further
submitted that the suit is barred by law of Hindu Succession Act
and the plaint has not been properly valued.
Per Contra, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued
that while deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC
only the averments contained in the plaint are to be considered
and the defence of the defendant or the contents mentioned in the
written statements are not to be looked into.
contd…….
-- 1 of 2 --
- 2 -
It is further submitted on behalf of plaintiff that the
plaint read as a whole discloses a cause of action. It is further
submitted that question regarding the plaintiff’s entitlement to
title and veracity of the averments in the plaint are matter of trial.
It is further submitted that the requisite court fee has been paid
and the defendant has failed to specify the deficiency, if any.
Analysis: At the stage of deciding an application under Order
VII Rule 11 CPC, the court is required to examine only the
averments in the plaint read as a whole, and not the defence of
the defendant. The plaint, when read as a whole, discloses a
cause of action in favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendant. Whether the plaintiff will ultimately succeed or
whether the averments made by him are correct is a matter to be
adjudicated at trial.
As regard the court fee and valuation, the plaintiff
has paid the court fee and the defendant has failed to demonstrate
any specific defeciency or explain how the suit has been under
valued.
Accordingly, no ground for rejection of plaintiff
under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is made out.
The application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is
therefore dismissed. Put up for arguments on the application u/o.
39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC on 16.10.2026.
(Shagun Sharma)
DJ-12 Central, THC,
Delhi/10.08.2026
-- 2 of 2 --