Order 11

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: SHEENU GUPTA Vs. RISHAB GUPTA AND ANR
CS SCJ 2101/22 pg. no.1/4
IN THE COURT OF SH. ARVIND DEV, DJS
CIVIL JUDGE-09, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
CS SCJ No. 2172/23
SHEENU GUPTA …...PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
RISHAB GUPTA AND ANR ...DEFENDANTS
ORDER
27.01.2026
1. By this order, the Court shall decide the application under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint.
2. The present application has been moved on behalf of
defendant no. 1 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the
plaint does not disclose any cause of action against defendant no. 1
and is liable to be rejected at the threshold.
3. Briefly stated, the case of the plaintiff, as pleaded in the
plaint, is that on 20.01.2016, the plaintiff advanced a loan of Rs.
1,00,000/- to defendant no. 1, Rishabh Gupta, and his father, Mukesh
Kumar Gupta, through cheque bearing no. 014030. It is averred that
the said loan carried quarterly interest and that defendant no. 1 had
been paying quarterly interest of Rs. 3,750/- regularly. It is further
-- 1 of 4 --
SHEENU GUPTA Vs. RISHAB GUPTA AND ANR
CS SCJ 2101/22 pg. no.2/4
pleaded that since 19.04.2022, the quarterly interest was being paid in
the name of Parrot Sanitary and Rishabh Trading Co.
4. The plaintiff has further pleaded that towards discharge of the
outstanding liability, a cheque bearing no. 110672 dated 28.08.2023
for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was issued in favour of the plaintiff. Upon
presentation, the said cheque was dishonoured with the remarks
“account blocked”. On account of non-payment of the cheque amount
along with interest, the plaintiff has instituted the present suit for
recovery of Rs. 1,32,250/- along with pendente lite and future
interest.
5. The defendant no. 1, by way of the present application, has
sought rejection of the plaint primarily on the ground that no loan was
ever taken by him from the plaintiff and that all loans allegedly taken
by his father, Mukesh Kumar Gupta, stood cleared during his lifetime.
It is further contended that Mukesh Kumar Gupta expired on
15.06.2023, whereas the cheque in question is dated 28.08.2023, and
therefore, no liability could subsist. It is also pleaded that the cheque
in question does not bear the signature of defendant no. 1 and that he
was never the borrower.
6. The law with respect to rejection of plaint under Order VII
Rule 11 CPC is well settled. At the stage of considering an
application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court is required to
confine itself strictly to the averments made in the plaint and the
-- 2 of 4 --
SHEENU GUPTA Vs. RISHAB GUPTA AND ANR
CS SCJ 2101/22 pg. no.3/4
documents filed along with it. The defence taken by the defendant in
the written statement or otherwise is wholly irrelevant for the
purposes of adjudicating such an application. The plaint can be
rejected only if, on a meaningful reading of the plaint, it does not
disclose a cause of action or is barred by any law.
7. In the present case, a careful reading of the plaint reveals that
the plaintiff has specifically pleaded advancement of loan to
defendant no. 1 and his father, payment of quarterly interest by
defendant no. 1 over a long period of time, and issuance of the cheque
in question towards discharge of liability. These averments, if taken at
face value, clearly disclose a cause of action in favour of the plaintiff
and against defendant no. 1.
8. The contentions raised by defendant no. 1, namely that he was
not a borrower, that the cheque does not bear his signature, that the
entire loan stood repaid, and that his father had expired prior to the
date of the cheque, are all matters of defence. Determination of these
issues would require appreciation of evidence, examination of
documents, and possibly oral testimony, which is impermissible at the
stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
9. Whether defendant no. 1 had in fact taken the loan, whether
interest was paid by him as alleged, whether the cheque was issued by
him or on his behalf, and whether the liability stood discharged prior
to the death of Mukesh Kumar Gupta are all triable issues which
-- 3 of 4 --
SHEENU GUPTA Vs. RISHAB GUPTA AND ANR
CS SCJ 2101/22 pg. no.4/4
cannot be adjudicated without a full-fledged trial. The Court cannot,
at this preliminary stage, conduct a roving inquiry into disputed
questions of fact or test the veracity of the plaintiff’s claims.
10. The mere denial of liability by defendant no. 1 or the
assertion that the cheque is not signed by him does not render the
plaint devoid of cause of action. So long as the plaint discloses a set
of facts which, if proved, would entitle the plaintiff to relief, rejection
of plaint is not warranted.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the plaint discloses a clear cause of action
against defendant no. 1 and that the objections raised in the present
application pertain to the merits of the matter, which can only be
decided after trial.
12. Accordingly, the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC
filed on behalf of defendant no. 1 is dismissed.
The observations made herein are only for the purpose of
deciding the present application and shall not be construed as an
expression on the merits of the case.
Announced in the court
on 27.01.2026
[Arvind Dev]
Civil Judge-09, C/THC/Delhi
27.01.2026
-- 4 of 4 --