Interim Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE-01, CENTRAL
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED OVER BY MS. HALA QUAMAR
CS SCJ 921/2025
RUPINDER KAUR
VS
SAVITA KAPOOR & ORS
ORDER
11.05.2026
1. Vide this Order, I shall dispose off an application u/O VII
Rule 11 r/w Section 151 of CPC filed on behalf of the defendant
No.1.
2. It is submitted that the plaint does not disclose the specific
provisions of law under which the reliefs have been claimed by
the plaintiff. That it is a settled proposition of law that a plaint
must contain all necessary particulars, provisions, and complete
details of the parties concerned. In this regard, reliance is placed
upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in T.
Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, Church of Christ Charitable
Trust & Educational Charitable Society v. Ponniamman
Educational Trust, ABC Laminart Pvt. Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies,
Salem, Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Assistant Charity Commissioner,
Ram Singh v. Gram Panchayat Mehal Kalan and Anathula
Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs & Ors. It is further
submitted that the Sale Deed dated 19.07.2021 clearly pertains
only to the “Entire Built-Up Ground Floor” of the suit property
and does not relate to or confer any right with respect to the first
CS SCJ 921/25 Page No.1 of 6
-- 1 of 6 --
floor of the suit property. The plaintiff neither possesses any title,
right, nor interest in the suit property nor discloses any valid
cause of action against the defendant. Hence, the plaint is liable
to be rejected. It is further submitted that no cause of action has
ever arisen in favour of the plaintiff. The present suit is
hopelessly barred by limitation, as the plaintiff has approached
this Hon’ble Court after a lapse of more than three years from the
execution of the Sale Deed dated 19.07.2021. The plaintiff, by
way of clever drafting, has intentionally omitted material dates in
the plaint in an attempt to bring the suit within the period of
limitation, which is impermissible in law. It is further submitted
that the present suit is barred under the provisions of the Code of
Civil Procedure as well as the Specific Relief Act. The plaintiff
has neither properly valued the suit property nor affixed the
requisite court fees. The monetary value of the suit property has
not been disclosed in the plaint, and deficient court fees have
been affixed. It is also submitted that the plaintiff is not in
possession of the suit property, and on this ground alone the
plaint is liable to be rejected. That a bare perusal of the plaint
clearly demonstrates that it does not disclose any cause of action
whatsoever against the defendant. In view of the aforesaid facts
and circumstances, Defendant No. 1 has prayed for rejection of
the plaint under the applicable provisions of law.
3. Reply to the present application has been filed on behalf of
the plaintiff, wherein the averments made by Defendant No. 1
have been categorically denied. It is submitted that the plaintiff
has instituted the present suit seeking reliefs of permanent and
mandatory injunction against the defendants. It is further
CS SCJ 921/25 Page No.2 of 6
-- 2 of 6 --
submitted that Defendant No. 1 has deliberately misconstrued
Annexure P-1, i.e., the Sale Deed executed in favour of the
plaintiff, in an attempt to falsely contend that the said Sale Deed
pertains only to the “Entire Built-Up Ground Floor” of the suit
property. However, a careful scrutiny of Annexure P-1 (pages
25–26 of the case file) clearly reveals that the Sale Deed pertains
not only to the ground floor but also to the first floor along with
roof rights of the suit property. It is further submitted that a bare
perusal of paragraph 27 of the plaint clearly demonstrates that a
valid and subsisting cause of action has arisen in favour of the
plaintiff and against the defendants. The plaintiff has specifically
pleaded the facts constituting the cause of action, and therefore,
the contention of Defendant No. 1 that the plaint discloses no
cause of action is wholly misconceived and untenable. It is also
submitted that the judgments relied upon by Defendant No. 1,
namely T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, Church of Christ
Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society v.
Ponniamman Educational Trust and other cited authorities, are
not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case,
as Defendant No. 1 has failed to explain how the said judgments
support the relief sought in the present application. It is further
submitted that even assuming, without admitting, that the period
of limitation commenced from 19.07.2021, the plaintiff is still
well within her legal right to seek possession and consequential
reliefs against the defendants within a period of 12 years in terms
of Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Hence, it is submitted
that the present suit is not barred by limitation. Further, it is
submitted that in the present case there is no cloud over the
plaintiff’s title and that with regard to the court fee, plaintiff
CS SCJ 921/25 Page No.3 of 6
-- 3 of 6 --
undertakes to pay any deficient court fees, if so determined by
this Court, at the stage of final adjudication of the suit. In view of
the aforesaid facts and submissions, it is prayed that the present
application filed by Defendant No. 1 seeking rejection of the
plaint be dismissed being devoid of merits.
4. Arguments have been heard on behalf of the parties and
the record of the case has been perused meticulously.
5. The first contention raised by the defendant in the present
application is that the plaintiff has relied upon the Sale Deed
dated 19.07.2021, wherein it is allegedly mentioned that only the
“Entire Built-Up Ground Floor” of the suit property was sold to
the plaintiff and not the first floor of the suit property. On this
basis, it is contended that the plaintiff does not possess any title
in respect of the suit property and consequently has no cause of
action against the defendant. However, a perusal of Annexure
P-1, i.e., the Sale Deed dated 19.07.2021, clearly reveals that the
property conveyed in favour of the plaintiff comprises the ground
floor, first floor along with terrace/roof rights up to the sky.
Therefore, the contention raised by the defendant is contrary to
the record and cannot be accepted.
6. The second contention of the defendant is that the present
suit is barred by limitation on the ground that the plaintiff
approached this Court after the lapse of more than three years
from the execution of the Sale Deed dated 19.07.2021. In this
regard, it is pertinent to mention that the present suit has been
filed seeking reliefs of permanent and mandatory injunction
along with damages/mesne profits. The cause of action in the
CS SCJ 921/25 Page No.4 of 6
-- 4 of 6 --
present case, as per the plaint, arose when Defendant No. 1
refused to vacate the suit property and remove the unauthorized
occupants therefrom on 01.02.2025. The present suit was
instituted on 21.05.2025 and is therefore well within the
prescribed period of limitation. Accordingly, this contention
raised by the defendant is also devoid of merits and is liable to be
rejected.
7. The third contention of the defendant is that the present
suit is barred under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act,
1963 and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs &
Ors. However, in the present case, the defendant has not raised
any cloud over the title of the plaintiff and, on the contrary, has
sought to justify possession by claiming adverse possession.
Therefore, the ratio of the aforesaid judgment is not applicable to
the facts of the present case. Consequently, this ground taken by
the defendant is also not tenable.
8. It is further contended by the defendant that the plaintiff is
not in possession of the suit property and that the monetary value
of the suit property has not been disclosed in the plaint and,
therefore, deficient court fees have been affixed. However, the
present suit has been filed seeking reliefs of permanent and
mandatory injunction against a licensee/unauthorized occupant.
For the purposes of suits seeking permanent and mandatory
injunction, the court fees have been properly affixed in
accordance with law. Hence, the objections raised by the
CS SCJ 921/25 Page No.5 of 6
-- 5 of 6 --
defendant regarding valuation and court fees are misconceived
and untenable.
9. In view of aforesaid discussion, the present application
stands dismissed.
Announced in the open Court
on this 11.05.2026.
(HALA QUAMAR)
Civil Judge-1 (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
CS SCJ 921/25 Page No.6 of 6
-- 6 of 6 --