Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 16 Civ Suit 316/25
MOHD JAVED SAIFY Vs. BALI ARYA
17.03.2026
Present: Sh. Rajeev Gupta and Sh. Archit Gupta, Ld counsels for the
plaintiff.
Sh. Radhey Shyam, Ld counsel for the defendant.
Ld counsel for the plaintiff submits that he does not wish to file
any reply to the application of the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and
that he is ready to straightway address his arguments.
Arguments heard on the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
By way of this application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the
defendant is praying for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the rent of the
suit property is Rs 100/- per month and not Rs 7,000/- as claimed by the
plaintiff and thus the present suit is barred under Section 50 of DRC Act.
Record perused.
The present suit has been filed for recovery of possession, arrears
of rent and mense profits against the defendant wherein it has been alleged that
the defendant is the tenant of the plaintiff for the monthly rent of Rs 7,000/- per
month. It is a settled law that for the adjudicating the application under Order 7
Rule 11 CPC only the plaint and its documents can be seen and the defence of
the defendant cannot be looked altogether. There is nothing in the plaint which
indicates the applicability of DRC Act.
In view of the same, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is
hereby dismissed.
Previous cost of Rs 500/- paid by Ld counsel for the defendant to
the Ld counsel for the plaintiff.
-- 1 of 2 --
::2:: 16 Civ Suit 316/25
MOHD JAVED SAIFY Vs. BALI ARYA
Ld counsel for the plaintiff seeks some time to file replication to
the amended WS. Heard and allowed with advance copy to the opposite side.
Put up for completion of pleadings, admission/denial of
documents and framing of issues on 03.06.2026.
(VINIK JAIN)
ACJ-cum-CCJ-cum-ARC(East)
KKD Court/Delhi/17.03.2026
-- 2 of 2 --