Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 10 Civ Suit 717/25 NUSRAT KHATOON (SR. CITIZEN) Vs. MOHD
IRSHAD
02.06.2026
Present: Sh. Gagan Kumar Singhal, Ld. counsel for the plaintiff (Through
VC).
Sh. Shrikant Maurya, Ld. counsel for the defendant alongwith
defendant no. 1.
Ld. Counsel for plaintiff submits that he does not wish to file any
reply to the pending application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC of the defendant
and that he is ready to straightway address his arguments.
Arguments heard.
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 plaintiff
does not have any cause of action as the suit property has already been sold by
the plaintiff to her husband and subsequently by her husband to the defendant.
Ld. counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that the documents on
which reliance has been placed by the defendant are forged and fabricated and
further at this stage, only the averments made in the plaint are to be seen.
There is force in the arguments of the Ld. counsel for the plaintiff
as it is a settled that at the time of the adjudication under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC
only the contents of the plaint have to be seen, and in the plaint, the plaintiff
has averred herself to be the owner.
In view of the aforesaid reasons, the application is hereby
dismissed.
-- 1 of 2 --
Before parting with this order, it is also noteworthy that there is a
serious dispute as to the title of the suit property. The present suit has been
filed for mandatory injunction and perpetual injunction on the ground that the
plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. The aforesaid injunctions sought
appear to be the consequential reliefs to the relief of declaration.
Accordingly, plaintiff is directed to move an appropriate
application to amend plaint within 30 working days from today.
Put up for further proceedings on 10.09.2026.
(VINIK JAIN)
ACJ-cum-CCJ-cum-ARC (East)
KKD Courts, Delhi/02.06.2026
-- 2 of 2 --