Interim Order 11

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: CS 636/24
AMARJEET Vs. RAJKUMAR SHARMA Page No. 1 of 5
CS 636/24
AMARJEET Vs. RAJKUMAR SHARMA
07.05.2026
Present: Sh. Govind Srivastav, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff
alongwith SPA/Wife of the plaintiff.
Defendant no. 1 in person.
Sh. Mohit Raj, Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 3.
None for remaining defendants.
1. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that the
settlement talks are going on between the parties and the matter
is likely to be settled and accordingly adjournment is prayed
for.
2. Though, at this stage, it is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for
the defendant no. 3 that an application under Order VII Rule 11
CPC, filed on behalf of the defendant no.3, is pending for
disposal.
3. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that the
plaint of the plaintiff is liable to be rejected against defendant
no. 1 as there is no cause of action against the defendant no. 3
in the present suit. Further, the suit of the plaintiff is bad for
lack of cause of action against the defendant no.3, being barred
by the Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, lack of locus-standi
and defective pleadings.
4.
Per-contra, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the
all the grounds raised by the defendant no.3 is beyond the scope
of provision of Order VII Rule 11 CPC and thus, the same
-- 1 of 5 --
CS 636/24
AMARJEET Vs. RAJKUMAR SHARMA Page No. 2 of 5
cannot be allowed, as the contentions as made in the application
require a full-fledged trial and the same may be adjudicated on
the basis of the evidence lead during the trial only.
Arguments Heard.
5. The present application has been preferred under Order VII
Rule 11 of the CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint, principally
on the grounds that no cause of action is disclosed against
defendant no.3, that the suit is barred under Section 41 of the
Specific Relief Act, the plaintiff lacks locus standi and that the
plaint suffers from defective pleadings.
6. Having considered the averments in the plaint, the
objections raised in the application, and the settled principles
governing the exercise of jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11
CPC, this Court finds no merit in the application and thus the
application preferred is
ex-facie liable to be rejected.
7. It is well-established that while adjudicating an application
under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the court is required to confine
itself to the averments contained in the plaint and the
documents relied upon by the plaintiff. The defence set up by
the defendants, however plausible, cannot be imported into
consideration at this preliminary stage.
8. The Court is not expected to conduct a mini trial, weigh
disputed facts, or test the probable success of the claim. The
-- 2 of 5 --
CS 636/24
AMARJEET Vs. RAJKUMAR SHARMA Page No. 3 of 5
only enquiry is whether the plaint, read as a whole and
assuming its assertions to be correct for the limited purpose of
this exercise, discloses a cause of action and whether the suit
is
ex facie barred by any law.
9. Tested on the touchstone of the aforesaid principles, the
objection that no cause of action is disclosed against defendant
no.3 is untenable. A cause of action comprises every bundle of
material facts which the plaintiff must prove in order to obtain
relief.
10. In the present case the plaintiff has sought the recovery of
amount from the defendants no. 1 and also sought the relief of
mandatory injunction against the defendant no.3 and 4 for
disclosing the bank details of the deceased mother of the
plaintiff and defendants no. 1 and 2, which are very much
essential for the effective adjudication of the present suit,
because in the absence of those records the claim of the plaintiff
and his entitlement to the share of his mother cannot effectively
be adjudicated.
11. Therefore, the threshold requirement of disclosure of cause
of action stands satisfied. Whether such claims are ultimately
proved or not proved by evidence is a matter for trial and thus,
beyond the scope of the mandate of the provisions of Order VII
Rule 11 CPC.
-- 3 of 5 --
CS 636/24
AMARJEET Vs. RAJKUMAR SHARMA Page No. 4 of 5
12. The contention of the defendant no.3 that the plaint suffers
from defective pleadings is equally devoid of merit. Defects in
drafting, absence of elaborate particulars do not
ipso facto
attract the consequence of rejection of the plaint. So long as the
plaint contains the foundational facts constituting the cause of
action, identifies the parties, discloses the nature of the
grievance, and indicates the reliefs sought, the requirements of
law stand substantially satisfied.
13. When the relationship amongst the contesting parties to the
suit, death of their mother Smt. Sarwati Devi and amount
deposited with the defendants no. 3 and 4 are categorically
mentioned in the plaint, thus, it cannot be said that the plaint
lacks in mentioning of any material particulars and therefore,
the objection is rejected at its very threshold.
14. Furthermore, the plea founded upon Section 41 of the
Specific Relief Act is equally misconceived. A bar under law
sufficient to attract Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC must be apparent
from the statements contained in the plaint itself and not one
that requires investigation into contested facts or interpretative
adjudication. Whether the relief claimed is barred by any of the
clauses of Section 41 depends upon the factual matrix, the
nature of rights asserted, the conduct of parties, the availability
of efficacious remedies, and the surrounding circumstances.
Such questions are ordinarily mixed questions of law and fact.
-- 4 of 5 --
CS 636/24
AMARJEET Vs. RAJKUMAR SHARMA Page No. 5 of 5
15. Admittedly the plaintiff is one of the LRs of the deceased
Smt. Sarwati Devi and thus, it is matter of trial that whether he
has any right to claim nay share on the properties left over by
his mother, which requires evidence and a judicial
determination. Therefore, at this stage his entitlement to the
share in the property of his mother cannot be decided.
16. Accordingly, it is wrong to claim that suit is barred by the
Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act and the plaintiff doesn’t
have the locus standi to filed the present suit as when plaintiff
is an admitted one of legal heirs of Smt. Sarwati Devi then he
cannot be non-suited at the inception merely because the
defendant disputes such entitlement.
17. It is noteworthy to mention that any observations made in
the order are prima facie expressions on the matter of
controversy and made only to the disposal of the present
application and will not influence a fair trial of the suit on its
merits.
The date has been given as per the convenience and
request of Ld. Counsel for the parties.
(Sandeep Kumar Sharma)
District Judge-04, East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
07.05.2026
-- 5 of 5 --