Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CS 121/23
SHOBHA KUMARI Vs. BABITA
22.05.2025
Present: Plaintiff in person with Ld. Counsel Ms. Agraza
Mitra.
Both defendants in person with Ld. Counsel Sh.
Mukesh Anand.
Fresh vakalantnama filed on behalf of the plaintiff.
Arguments heard on application u/O VII Rule 11
CPC filed by defendant no. 1.
Ld. Counsel for the defendants has argued that
present suit for possession, permanent injunction and mesne
profits filed by the plaintiff (against defendant no. 1, daughter-in-
law) in respect of suit property no. 65A, Krishan Kunj Extn.,
Laxmi Nagar, Khureji Khas, Shahdara, Delhi-110092 is not
maintainable before this court in view of judgment dated
01.06.2022 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case
titled as Avneet Kaur vs. Sandhu Singh & Anr. in CM(M)
69/2020 & CM APPL. 2707/2020. It is further argued by Ld.
Counsel for the defendant that cause of action to file the present
suit arises from the matrimonial relationship of the parties,
therefore present suit has to be tried by the Ld. Family Court as
per the provisions of Family Court Act.
Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the
judgment as relied upon by Ld. Counsel for the defendant has
been overruled in subsequent judgement dated 01.04.2024 of
Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CS No.
601/22, wherein it is held that suit filed by mother-in-law for
Page no. 1 of 3
-- 1 of 3 --
seeking possession from the daughter-in-law on the basis of title
cannot be said to be a suit arising out of matrimonial relationship,
therefore such suit cannot be exclusively tried by the Ld. Family
Courts.
Ld. Counsel for the defendants further argued that
there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff to file the
present suit as suit property was transferred by the son of plaintiff
to her after initiation of matrimonial dispute between the
defendant no. 1 and son of the plaintiff and no consideration has
been paid by the plaintiff to her son in respect of transfer of suit
property.
It is settled law that at the time of deciding the
application u/O VII Rule 11 of CPC, the court cannot look into
the defence of the defendant, therefore arguments raised by Ld.
Counsel for the defendant cannot be considered at this stage for
rejection of the plaint.
In view of the above said consideration and law laid
down by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
in CS(OS) 601/2022 on 01.04.2024, the
application u/O VII Rule
11 CPC filed by defendant no. 1 is dismissed.
Replication qua WS of defendant no. 2 not filed by
the plaintiff. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff seeks some time to file
the same. Let the same be filed within two weeks from today
with advance copy of the same to Ld. Counsel for the defendants.
Parties are directed to file affidavit of
admission/denial of documents at least two weeks prior to the
next date of hearing with advance copy of the same with each
other.
At this stage, two applications, one u/O 1 Rule 10
Page no. 2 of 3
-- 2 of 3 --
CPC and another application u/O XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC filed
by the defendant. Copy of application u/O 1 Rule 10 of CPC
supplied to Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
Ld. Counsel for the defendant undertakes to provide
copy of application u/O XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC to Ld.
Counsel for the plaintiff.
Let reply, if any be filed within four weeks with
advance copy of the same to Ld. Counsel for the defendant.
Put up for completion of pleadings, framing of
issues/arguments on the aforesaid applications on 03.09.2025.
(Hem Singh)
District Judge-01
East/KKD Court/Delhi/22.05.2025
Page no. 3 of 3
-- 3 of 3 --