Interim Order 9

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CS 148/25, Sanjay Sharma v. Shashi Bala Page no.1 of 9
Date of Order: 18.11.2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SOMITRA KUMAR
DISTRICT JUDGE-06, (EAST)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
CS No.148/2025
In the matter of :-
Sanjay Sharma
…..Plaintiff
Versus
Shashi Bala
…..Defendant
ORDER ON APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 CPC
FILED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT
18.11.2025
1. Vide this order, the court shall decide the application
under Order VII Rule 11 the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) filed by the
defendant.
2. The present suit is a suit for possession, mesne profit,
perpetual and mandatory injunction filed by plaintiff
against the defendant in respect of built up property
-- 1 of 9 --
CS 148/25, Sanjay Sharma v. Shashi Bala Page no.2 of 9
Date of Order: 18.11.2025
situated at 2nd floor consisting of one room set part of
property no. A-31, area measuring 25 sq.yds out of rec.
no.11, Kila no.14, situated in the abadi of Indira Park in
the area of Village Khajuri Khas, Illaqua shahdara,
Delhi-51 (hereinafter referred as ‘the suit property’).
3. It is averred in the plaint that plaintiff purchased the suit
property from one Sh. R.P. Sabharwal for consideration
amount of Rs. 50,000/- vide General Power of Attorney,
and Will both dated 06.10.1998 registered before the Sub-
Registrar IV, and notarized Agreement to Sell, Affidavit,
& Receipt of payment dated 24.09.1998 Delhi and took
over the possession of the suit property from the vendor on
24.09.1998; that plaintiff was residing at the suit property
however, due to lesser space in the suit property the
plaintiff shifted to another property i.e. HIG Flat bearing
no. H-5, Associated Apartment, I.P. Extension, Delhi-92 in
the month of January, 2003; that the suit property was
locked by the plaintiff and plaintiff used to visit the suit
property off & on for the purpose of maintenance and
cleaning it; that the defendant was residing on the 3rd floor
of the same property in which the suit property is situated
i.e. A-31, in the Abadi of Indira Park in the area of Village
Khajuri Khas, Illaqua Shahdara, Delhi-51 and had an evil
eye on the suit property; that in December, 2005,
-- 2 of 9 --
CS 148/25, Sanjay Sharma v. Shashi Bala Page no.3 of 9
Date of Order: 18.11.2025
defendant with ulterior motive, in absence of the plaintiff,
broke open the lock of the suit property and entered into it;
that on 05.01.2006, plaintiff came to the suit property
along with his friend for the purpose of cleaning it,
however, plaintiff found that lock of the suit property was
broken and defendant was sitting in the property.
4. It is further averred in the plaint that the plaintiff lodged a
complaint before SHO P.S. Krishna Nagar on 05.01.2006
and also approached Senior Police Officer and on the
orders of the Senior Police Officers an FIR no. 133/2006
u/s 448/380/506 IPC was registered against the defendant
at P.S. Krishna Nagar on 01.04.2006; that during the
course of the investigation, it has come in evidence that
Almirah of plaintiff containing important documents,
clothes etc. was found to be placed inside the suit property;
that said almirah was seized by Investigating Office in the
aforesaid case and photographs of the same were taken;
that the articles containing utensils, T.V. etc was found in
the suit property and same was also photographed by the
IO.
5. It is further averred in the plaint that on 18.01.2025, IO in
the aforesaid FIR filed a report before Ld. Metropolitan
Magistrate stating that no articles of the plaintiff were
found in the suit property therefore, in view of report of IO
-- 3 of 9 --
CS 148/25, Sanjay Sharma v. Shashi Bala Page no.4 of 9
Date of Order: 18.11.2025
the plaintiff came to know on 18.01.2025, he has been
illegal dispossessed from the suit property. In view of the
aforesaid pleadings, the present suit has been filed by the
plaintiff against the defendant.
6. Defendant contested the present suit by filing written
statement. It is the case of the defendant that defendant is
the owner of the suit property as she purchased two flats in
the property bearing no. A-31, in the Abadi of Indira Park
in the area of Village Khajuri Khas, Illaqua Shahdara,
Delhi-51 from her own funds; that out of the said two flats;
that the plaintiff compelled the defendant to register the
documents of one flat (i.e. the suit property) in his name
while the other was registered in the name of the
defendant; that flat of defendant was sold under
compulsion for the dire need of the plaintiff and sale
proceeds of the said flat was given to the plaintiff as the
plaintiff promised to repay the same and both the plaintiff
and the defendant started to living together in the suit
property as husband and wife; that defendant was never
inducted as tenant and never paid any rent in respect of the
suit property by the defendant.
7. In the instant application, the defendant has sought the
rejection of the plaint, mainly on the grounds that the
plaintiff has claimed possession of the suit property on the
-- 4 of 9 --
CS 148/25, Sanjay Sharma v. Shashi Bala Page no.5 of 9
Date of Order: 18.11.2025
basis General Power of Attorney, Will, Agreement to sell,
Affidavit, Receipts etc. which are not title document of
immovable property and said documents are not valid
documents as per the judgments of the Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, the
present suit is liable to be dismissed; that the plaintiff has
not mentioned the source of income for the purchase of the
suit property; that the defendant is the owner of the suit
property as she purchased the two flats in the property in
question form her own funds and the defendant was never
inducted as tenant and she never paid any rent to the
plaintiff in respect of the suit property; that the plaintiff is
not entitled to relief as claimed from the court as he has
not come to the court with clean hand and he has
suppressed material facts from the court; that the present
suit is time barred as same has been filed after 18 years of
alleged dispossession of the plaintiff by the defendant; that
court fee has not been properly valued and requisite court
fee has not been paid; that site plan of the suit property has
not been filed by the plaintiff upon which he is claiming
ownership of.
8. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff vehemently opposed the
present application by filing its reply. Plaintiff has placed
reliance on G.Nagraj & Anr. v. B.P.Mruthunjaynna &
-- 5 of 9 --
CS 148/25, Sanjay Sharma v. Shashi Bala Page no.6 of 9
Date of Order: 18.11.2025
Ors., Civil Appeal No.19944/2019, decided on 11.04.2003,
reported in 2023 LAWPACK (SC) 68312 : 2023 (3) SLT
631, Balasaria Construction (P) Ltd v. Hanuman Seva
Trust & Ors., (2006) 5 SCC 658, Popat and Kotecha
Property v. State Bank of India Staff Association, AIR
Online 2005 SC 1032, Mohan Lal Sukhadia University v.
Priya Soloman, Khaja Soloman, AIR 1999 Raj 102 –
Khaja Quthubullah v. Govt. of AP, AIR 1995 A.P. 43
(1994) 3, Vedapalli Suryanarayana v. Poosarla Venkata
Suryanarayan, Arjan Singh v. Union of India, ILR 1973
Delhi 93, Md. Mohammad Ali (dead) by LRs v. Jagdish
Kalita & Ors., (2004) 1 SCC 271, P.T.Munichikkanna
Reddy & Ors. v. Revamma & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 1753,
Bir Singh & Anr. v. Kishan Chand, 2006 SCC OnLine HP
21, Bhagavathy Pillai & Anr. v. Savarimuthu & Anr. and
Rustom v. Ramzan, 2001 SCC OnLine P&H 73.
9. Rejoinder to the reply to the present application has been
filed by the defendant, thereby denied the averments made
in the reply and reiterated the averments made in the
application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC as well as written
statement.
10. Submissions heard and Record has been carefully perused.
11. As per the averment in the plaint, the plaintiff had been in
possession of the suit property from 24.09.1998 till the
-- 6 of 9 --
CS 148/25, Sanjay Sharma v. Shashi Bala Page no.7 of 9
Date of Order: 18.11.2025
defendant illegally occupied the suit property after
breaking the lock of the same in December 2005; however,
goods and articles of the plaintiff were lying in the suit
property. It is also averred by the plaintiff in the plaint that
the plaintiff came to know, through a report filed by the
Investigating Office before the Ld. Metropolitan
Magistrate in the matter of FIR No. 133/2006, P.S.
Krishan Nagar, Delhi, that no goods and articles belonging
to the plaintiff are found in the suit property. Therefore, as
per averment in the plaint, it is the contention of the
plaintiff that he came to know about his dispossession
from the suit property in January 2025.
12. The law with regard to Order VII Rule 11 CPC is well
settled. While dealing with an application for rejection of the
plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the court has to
consider only the averments made in the plaint and not the
defence of the Defendant or the contents of the application
under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
13. Therefore, considering averments in the plaint that the
plaintiff came to know that he was dispossessed from the
suit property only in January 2025, it is a matter of trial as
to when the plaintiff was dispossessed of the suit property.
Further, the issue of limitation for filing a suit is a mixed
question of law and fact. Therefore, in view of the
-- 7 of 9 --
CS 148/25, Sanjay Sharma v. Shashi Bala Page no.8 of 9
Date of Order: 18.11.2025
averment in the plaint, the court is of the view that the
plaintiff be given an opportunity to establish his case that
the plaint of the present suit is not time-barred.
14. As regards the contention of the defendant that the present
suit is not maintainable as the same has been filed on the
basis of documents viz. GPA, Will, Agreement to sell,
Receipt, etc., which are not documents of title, it is seen
that the plaintiff has averred in the plaint about the prior
possession of the suit property. In view of this, it is again a
matter of trial who, between the plaintiff and the
defendant, has better right, title or interest over the suit
property.
15. As regards the contention of the defendant that the relief as
prayed in the plaint has not been properly valued and the
requisite court fees have not been paid, it is seen that in
para no. 33 of the plaint, the plaintiff has separately valued
the relief of possession, damages, mesne and mandatory
injunction and accordingly paid a court fee of Rs.
19,330/-. If it is the case of the defendant that the suit
property has been undervalued for the relief of possession,
the same is a matter of trial, which cannot be decided at
this stage.
16. In view of the aforesaid observation and analysis, the court
is of the view that at this stage, the defendant has not made
-- 8 of 9 --
CS 148/25, Sanjay Sharma v. Shashi Bala Page no.9 of 9
Date of Order: 18.11.2025
out a case of rejection of the plaint and the plaintiff ought
to be given an opportunity to prove his case by adducing
evidence in the matter. Thus, the present application under
Order VII Rule 11 of CPC filed by the defendant is devoid
of merit and hence stands dismissed.
Announced in the open Court
on 18th day of November, 2025.
(SOMITRA KUMAR)
DJ-06,EAST/ KKD COURTS
DELHI/18.11.2025
-- 9 of 9 --