Interim Order 10

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SH. VIVEK BENIWAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-RENT CONTROLLER, EAST,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
SUIT No.:- 776/2024
CNR No.:- DLET03-001240-2024
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Sh. Gyanendra Kumar Shukla
S/o Sh. Shyam Sunder Shukla,
R/o H. No.C-2119, Gaur Siddhartham,
Siddharth Vihar, PO Vijay Nagar,
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh
….......Plaintiff
Versus
The Manager
Canara Bank
Mayur Vihar Phase-II,
CSC Market Phase-II,
New Delhi- 110091
….......Defendant
Order on application filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule
11 CPC
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose the present application under
Order VII Rule 11 of CPC filed by the defendant.
2. It is the case of the plaintiff that plaintiff has taken the education
loan for his daughter namely Ms. Deepa Shukla from the defendant
for an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty Thousand
CS No: 776/2024 Gyanendra Kumar Shukla Vs. The Manager, Canara Bank 1 of 8
-- 1 of 8 --
Only) in the year 2008 and he was paying the monthly EMI’s to the
defendant and with the passage of time , the plaintiff has settled the
said amount with the defendant and in this regard, the defendant has
also issued the NOC in favour of the plaintiff vide loan account
no.1956651002649 and accordingly, the plaintiff has made the full and
final amount to the defendant as per the terms and conditions of the
settlement.
3. Despite the settlement, the defendant has seized the bank
account of the plaintiff vide account no.1956101068004 and in this
regard, the defendant has also issued a letter to the plaintiff on dated
23.07.2024 on the basis of vexatious reason, however, there is no case
is pending against the plaintiff in any court of law and in the said letter
it has also been mentioned that “Apart from this the hold of
Rs.1,20,000/- is marked with description Deepa Shukla EL which is
removed”.
4. It is submitted that when the settlement was already arrived
between the plaintiff and the defendant then the defendant was/is
having no power to deduct the said amount of Rs.1,20,000/- and the
said amount is also to be released in favour of the plaintiff because
there is no order passed by any court to deduct the said amount. It is
further submitted that there is no order on record dated 04.03.2020 on
the basis of which the defendant has seized the bank account of the
plaintiff and hold the amount of the plaintiff i.e. Rs.3,91,000/-. It is
submitted that now the plaintiff is unable to withdraw a single penny
from his own bank account and he asked the defendant that the above
said points which have been mentioned by the defendants in the letter
CS No: 776/2024 Gyanendra Kumar Shukla Vs. The Manager, Canara Bank 2 of 8
-- 2 of 8 --
dated 23.07.2024 are vexatious and having no iota of truth but despite
this, the defendant is not opening/desealing the account of the plaintiff
which is causing a great mental, physical as well as financial agony to
the plaintiff.
5. In the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, it is submitted
by the defendant that present suit filed by the plaintiff for the relief of
permanent injunction, thereby praying for restraining the defendant,
its official, agents, legal representatives or attorneys from creating any
hindrance in the peaceful operation of the account bearing
No.1956651002649, and also mandatory injunction against the
defendant thereby directing the defendant to remove the seizure from
the account of the plaintiff and open the bank account of the plaintiff
i.e. 1956651002649 in its original form and allow the plaintiff to
withdraw the amount i.e. Rs.3,91,000/- and Rs.1,20,000/- and further
the amount of Rs.1,20,000/- be also directed to transfer in the account
of the plaintiff.
6. Perusal of Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC make its clear that
where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint of the plaintiff
is bared by the law of limitation as filed after the lapse of statuary
period which is provided by the statue. The plaintiff filed the suit on
29.10.2024 before this Hon’ble Court as it is evident from the context
of the plaint of the plaintiff that cause of action arose for the first time
on 09.03.2021 when defendant has seized and account of the plaintiff.
It is also evident from the context of the suit that the plaintiff has
failed to annex or produce any account or document substantiating the
claim that any specific amount was ever deducted from the account of
CS No: 776/2024 Gyanendra Kumar Shukla Vs. The Manager, Canara Bank 3 of 8
-- 3 of 8 --
amount of Rs.5,11,000/- (Rs.3,91,000/- + Rs.11,20,000/-) despite of
the fact that the account statement relied upon by the plaintiff it totally
contradictory with his prayers of the suit and showing Balance of only
10-11 thousand. The defendant is seeking a direction with respect to
an amount of more than Rs.3,00,000/- which is beyond the pecuniary
jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. That plaintiff fails to disclose a
proper and specific cause of action for the claim of recovery of money
in the plaint and plaintiff also not provided any details of the
transaction, under which the defendant is alleged to owe the stated
amount.
7. It is submitted before this Hon’ble Court that in T.
Arivandandam Vs. T. V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that “where the plaint is manifestly vexatious and
meritless, the court should exercise power under Order VII Rule 11
CPC at the threshold itself to prevent abuse of process”. The plaintiff
has improperly combined the two in a single suit without compliance
with the mandatory procedural requirements. Plaintiff seeks injunction
and declaration concerning amounts exceeding Rs.5,00,000/-, yet has
deliberately undervalued the relief and affixed only nominal court fee.
It is submitted before this Hon’ble Court that in the matter of
Shamsher Singh Vs. Rajinder Prashad (1973) 2 SCC 524, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that undervaluation of relief to evade
court fee is a ground for rejection of plaint.
8. The file is carefully gone through. Case laws referred by the
defendant is perused. In Saleem Bhai and others vs. State of
Maharashtra and others [2003 (1) SCC 557] it was held with
CS No: 776/2024 Gyanendra Kumar Shukla Vs. The Manager, Canara Bank 4 of 8
-- 4 of 8 --
reference to Order VII Rule 11 of the Code that the relevant facts
which need to be looked into for deciding an application thereunder
are the averments in the plaint. The trial court can exercise the power
at any stage of the suit – before registering the plaint or after issuing
summons to the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the
trial. For the purposes of deciding an application under Clauses (a)
and (d) of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, the averments in the plaint
are germane and the pleas taken by the defendant in the written
statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage.
9. In Maharaji Educational Trust & Anr. Vs. Punjab & Sind
Bank & Anr. 127 (2006) Delhi Law Times 161, it was held by
Hon'ble High Court :
"It is a settled principle of law that in order to take up the
pleas under Order VII Rules 10 and 11 of the Code, the
party concerned has to essentially take the averments
made in the plaint as correct. Such a plea being the plea
of demurrer the defendants cannot take advantage of the
averments made in the written statement or the factual
narration to show that averments made in the plaint are
incorrect. The court would take into consideration the
plaint as a whole and the documents placed by the
plaintiffs on record, in order to examine such pleas. This
principle of law is no more res integra and has been
settled by various judgments of the court. In this regard,
reference can be made to the judgment of this Court in the
case of New Holland Tractors (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Raja
CS No: 776/2024 Gyanendra Kumar Shukla Vs. The Manager, Canara Bank 5 of 8
-- 5 of 8 --
Industrial Works and Ors. (IA 6689/2005 in CS(OS)
501/2004) decided on 8th September, 2005 :-
“It is further a settled canon of civil jurisprudence that the
court while considering an application under Order 7
Rule 11 of the CPC has to assume that the facts averred in
the plaint are primarily correct particularly when such
averments are supported by the documents in the case.
Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of
ABN-Amre Bank v. the Punjab Urban Planning and
Development Authority 1993(3) PLR 479, where the
court held as under:-
“It is a settled rule of law that the plea of rejection of
plaint is founded on the "PLEA OF DEMURRER". A
person raising such plea in law has to take the facts as
stated by the opponent as correct. Despite tentative
admission of such correctness, the plaint does not
disclose a complete or even partial cause of action or the
relief claimed is barred by law and thus, the plaint is
liable to be rejected within the provisions of Order VII
Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Plain language of
this rule shows that for determination of an application
under this provision, the Court has to look into the plaint.
This concept has been extended by judicial
pronouncement of various courts so as to take within its
ambit even the documents filed by the plaintiff Along
with plaint or subsequent thereto but prior to the hearing
of such application.”
CS No: 776/2024 Gyanendra Kumar Shukla Vs. The Manager, Canara Bank 6 of 8
-- 6 of 8 --
10. In Sangeeta Garg vs. Deepak Bansal & Anr. 155 (2008) Delhi
Law Times 173 (DB), it was held by Hon’ble High Court :
“It is well settled law that rejection of the plaint is a
serious matter as it takes away the very basis of the suit
rendering as if there was no suit at all or that no suit was
instituted. Bare allegations made in the plaint and
documents filed therewith are required to be looked into
to determine whether the plaint discloses the cause of
action. It is also well settled law that the pleas taken by
the defendants in the written statement would be wholly
irrelevant at that stage. The correctness of allegations
made in the plaint or otherwise is not to be considered at
the stage of consideration of question as to whether the
plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 on
the ground that it does not disclose cause of action. The
power to reject a plaint under this clause must be
exercised only if the court comes to the conclusion that
even if at all the allegations are proved the Plaintiff would
not be entitled to any relief whatever. So long as the
plaint discloses some cause of action or raises some
question fit to be decided by the Court, mere fact that the
case is weak and not likely to succeed is no ground for
striking it out.”
11. The present case has been filed by the plaintiff claiming
permanent injunction, thereby praying for restraining the defendant,
its official, agents, legal representatives or attorneys from creating any
hindrance in the peaceful operation of the account bearing
CS No: 776/2024 Gyanendra Kumar Shukla Vs. The Manager, Canara Bank 7 of 8
-- 7 of 8 --
No.1956651002649, and also mandatory injunction against the
defendant thereby directing the defendant to remove the seizure from
the account of the plaintiff. The perusal of the plaint establishes that
the plaintiff does have a cause of action against the defendant and I am
not of the opinion that the plaint is devoid of any cause of action.
Hence, the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is
dismissed.
Vivek Beniwal
Senior Civil Judge-cum-RC (East)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
21.01.2026
CS No: 776/2024 Gyanendra Kumar Shukla Vs. The Manager, Canara Bank 8 of 8
-- 8 of 8 --