Interim Order 11

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CS SCJ 184/25
	Kusum Arora Vs. Kuldeep Singh Mann
Page no. 1 / 5
32 CS SCJ 184/25
Kusum Arora Vs. Kuldeep Singh Mann
09.10.2025
Present : Sh. Lokesh Sharma, Ld. counsel for plaintiff.
Sh. Ankur Gupta, Ld. counsel for defendant.
Ld. counsel for plaintiff had moved application u/s
151 CPC. Copy supplied today.
Let reply, if any, be filed on NDOH with advance
copy to opposite side against receipt.
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.
2. Coming to the facts of the present case, it is submitted by
the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit
property and the defendant was inducted as a tenant vide
rent agreement dt. 19.12.23 for 11 months on a monthly
rent of Rs. 25,000/-. That the defendant is habitual
defaulter and started defaulting in payment of rent, and
after several reminders, the defendant issued a cheque for
amount of ₹80,000/- as part payment towards the
outstanding rent of ₹93,000/- due as on 19.05.2024. That
upon the presentment of cheque on 29.05.2024, the same
was dishonoured vide memo dt. 30.05.24. That the
defendant requested the plaintiff to present the cheque
again and the plaintiff presented the cheque on 14.06.24,
-- 1 of 5 --
CS SCJ 184/25
	Kusum Arora Vs. Kuldeep Singh Mann
Page no. 2 / 5
which was again dishonoured vide returning memo dated
15.06.24. That the plaintiff sent a legal demand notice
dated 09.07.23 calling upon the defendant to pay the
outstanding rent, but despite the service of the notice, the
defendant did not pay any rent.
3. The main grounds raised in the application for rejection of
plaint are that the plaintiff has not properly valued the
present suit as per section 8 of the valuation act as the
market value of the suit property is ₹50,00,000/-
approximately and the plaintiff had affixed the court fees
of Rs. 100/- only and later paid the deficit court fees of Rs.
4,000/- upon the direction of the court. That the plaintiff
had sold the property to the wife of the defendant for the
consideration amount of ₹43,00,000/- which was paid by
the defendant in installments and the defendant has been in
the possession of the said property since 20.12.2023.
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
-- 2 of 5 --
CS SCJ 184/25
	Kusum Arora Vs. Kuldeep Singh Mann
Page no. 3 / 5
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
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
-- 3 of 5 --
CS SCJ 184/25
	Kusum Arora Vs. Kuldeep Singh Mann
Page no. 4 / 5
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, the ground regarding the court
fees taken by the defendant in the present application does
not hold any water as a suit for eviction by a landlord
against a tenant is to be valued based on one year's rent as
per Section 7(xi)(cc) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 and the
plaintiff does not need to pay ad-valorem fees on the
market value of the property. The plaintiff had paid the
deficit court fess at the later stage upon the direction of the
court and The Delhi High Court in Kamlesh Gupta v.
Vakeel Ahmad held that the court is well within its powers
under section 149 CPC to enlarge the time for filing the
court fees and the court fees filed at the latest stage shall
have effect as if the same was filed at the time of filing of
the suit. As for the ground that the plaintiff had sold the
suit property to the wife of the defendant, 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
-- 4 of 5 --
CS SCJ 184/25
	Kusum Arora Vs. Kuldeep Singh Mann
Page no. 5 / 5
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. Now put for arguments of applications under Order 39
Rule 1 & 2 CPC, application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC
and application under Sec. 151 CPC filed by the plaintiff
on 11.11.2025.
(Sahil Gupta)
CJ-07(C)/THC/Delhi/09.10.2025
-- 5 of 5 --