Interim Order 17

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 35 CS SCJ 151/23
VIKAS VATS AND ORS. Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
OF DELHI AND ORS.
29.11.2024
Present : Sh. Abhinav, Ld. proxy counsel for plaintiff.
None for defendant no. 1.
None for defendant no. 2 and 3.
ORDER ON APPLICATION U/O VII RULE 11 CPC
1. Vide this order I shall decide the application U/o VII Rule
11 CPC moved on behalf of the defendant no.2 & 3.
2. Coming to the facts of the present case, it is submitted by
the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit
property. That the plaintiffs and the defendant no.2 & 3 are
the neighbours and there is a street of 12 feet bifurcating
the property of both the plaintiff and the defendant That
defendant no.2 & 3 have been running illegal Dharamkanta
i.e. commercial activity in the residential area without any
license from the concerned authority. That the people at
Dharamkanta drink liquor, create hinderance and create
nuisance during the school hours. That defendant no.2 & 3
are even running illegal parking regarding which written
complaint was made to the officials on 17.12.2022.
3. The main grounds raised in the application for rejection of
plaint are that defendant no.2 is running the business of
Dharamkanta as proprietor of the premises since 1993,
CS SCJ 151/23
Page no. 1 of 4
Vikas Vats And Ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And Ors.
-- 1 of 4 --
with due permission from the concerned authorities and
has a proper license in the respect. That the defendant no.3
has been paying property tax to the concerned department.
That the defendant no.1 renewed the license of defendant
no.3 for running a parking which is valid from 13.04.2024,
up to 31.03.2025.
4. The plaintiff has denied all the averments made by the
defendant in his application.
5. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
6. However, before delving into the merits of the present
application, I would like to briefly recapitulate the law
pertaining to rejection of plaints. It is an undisputed canon
of codified civil jurisprudence that the legislative intent
behind the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, is to
bring the finality to a civil
lis before the court at the very
threshold, provided, the grounds stated therein for rejection
of a plaint are satisfied. The object of the provision of
Order VII Rule 11 CPC is to keep out irresponsible law
suits. In a way, it is to be used as a handy tool by the
Courts to segregate the grain from the chaff, on a purely
prima facie examination of the statements made in the
plaint. The purpose of the said exercise is to ensure that the
plaint which is on the face of it vexatious and meritless and
does not disclose a clear subsisting right to sue, is required
to be thrown out at the threshold. The whole purpose of
conferment of such powers is to ensure that a litigation
CS SCJ 151/23
Page no. 2 of 4
Vikas Vats And Ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And Ors.
-- 2 of 4 --
which is meaningless should not be permitted to occupy
the time of the Court and vex the mind of the defendant.
Further, it is a settled rule of law that the plea of
rejection of plaint is founded on the "PLEA OF
DEMURRER". A person raising such plea in law has to
take the facts as stated by the opponent as correct. Despite
tentative admission of such correctness, if the plaint does
not disclose a complete or even partial cause of action or
the relief claimed is barred by law, then the plaint is liable
to be rejected under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of
the Code of Civil Procedure. The defense raised by the
defendants in his written statement or the documents filed
along with it certainly fall beyond the zone of
consideration, where an application for rejection of a plaint
is being considered by the Court. The language of the rules
does not admit any scope for doubt that the written
statement filed by the defendant cannot be referred or
relied upon by the applicants for decision of such
application. However, the power to reject the plaint must
be exercised only if the court comes to the conclusion that
even if all the allegations in the plaint if taken to be
proved, the plaintiff/Applicant would not be entitled to any
relief whatsoever.
7. After perusing the material on record and considering the
arguments of both the sides, I find that disputed questions
of facts are involved in the present case and rejection of
plaint on a purely prima facie examination of plaint would
not be justified. The question whether the plaintiff has a
CS SCJ 151/23
Page no. 3 of 4
Vikas Vats And Ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And Ors.
-- 3 of 4 --
valid license to run the Dharamkanta and has a valid
license to run the parking, will be proved only during the
trial. Further, the defence raised by the defendant in his
application or the documents filed along with it, certainly
fall beyond the zone of consideration, where an application
for rejection of a plaint is being considered by the Court.
The language of the rules thus does not admit any scope
for doubt that the written statement filed by the defendant
cannot be referred or relied upon by the applicants for
decision of such application.
8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC stands
dismissed.
9. Put up for framing of issues on 15.01.2025.
(Sahil Gupta)
CJ-07(C)/THC/Delhi/29.11.2024
CS SCJ 151/23
Page no. 4 of 4
Vikas Vats And Ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And Ors.
-- 4 of 4 --