Final Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF NEHA GUPTA SINGH:
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-RENT CONTROLLER
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE
COURTS NEW DELHI
CS SCJ502/21
CPWD & ANR. ….Plaintiffs.
Vs.
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA. ..Defendant
08.7.2022
ORDER
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of application U/o 7
Rule 11 CPC filed by the defendant.
2. Brief facts as per the suit filed by the plaintiff are that
plaintiff is seeking permanent injunction against the
defendant Airport Authority of India. It is alleged that
defendant had sent an eviction notice dated 10.7.2018
to the plaintiff for vacation of Office of AE/III, Delhi,
Aviation Division, Sub-Division-III, CPWD, INA Colony,
New Delhi within a period of 15 days. It is contended
that eviction notice is issued despite the fact that suit
premises is a Central Government property belonging
to CPWD and defendant has no authority to seek
eviction. It is further contended that said premises is
under the ownership and administrative control of
CPWD & ANR vs. Airport Authority of India Page No.1 of 10
-- 1 of 10 --
MOHUA/Land and Development Office. Same do not
fall under the control of Airport Authority of India.
Proceedings initiated by the defendant are irregular
and illegal. Plaintiff is in lawful possession of the suit
premises. Plaintiff has relied on letter No.L&DO/L-II-
A/DY no.448/2019/239 dated 23.05.2019 of Deputy
Land and Development Officer, Ministry of Housing
and Urban Affairs, L&DO Office, Nirman Bhawan, Delhi
regarding the status of land in dispute with Airport
Authority of India at Safdajung Airport, New Delhi
wherein it is stated that suit premises vests with
Government of India and is under administrative
control of Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, L&DO
Office. However, Office has no record of allotment
details.
3. Defendant has filed alongwith their WS and an
application U/o 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the
plaint. It is stated that the plaintiff has suppressed the
fact that the eviction proceedings were concluded on
03.6.2019 by the Office of the Eviction Officer, Under
Airport Authority of India Act, 1994. Plaintiff has filed
their reply and has participated in the proceedings
held by the Eviction Officer. Eviction Proceedings were
CPWD & ANR vs. Airport Authority of India Page No.2 of 10
-- 2 of 10 --
concluded on 03.6.2019 and an order was passed on
23.8.2019 directing the plaintiff to vacate the
premises under the possession within 15 days from
receipt of the order or by 23.9.2019. It is alleged that
as per sub-section 5 of Section 28K Airport Authority
of India Act, 1994 this court has no jurisdiction to try
and entertain the present suit. Present suit is barred
by the Airport Authority of India Act, 1994.
4. Plaintiff has filed reply to the application U/o 7 Rule 11
(d) CPC on the ground that affidavit is not attested by
the Oath Commissioner. It is reiterated that the suit
premises do not fall under the control of defendant
and is under the ownership and administrative control
of MOHUA/L&DO.
5. I have heard the Ld. counsel for applicant/defendant
and respondent/plaintiff and have perused the record
carefully.
6. Ld. counsel for defendant/ applicant has argued that
present suit is liable to be rejected under Order VII
Rule 11 being barred by law as provided in section 28
K Airport Authority of India Act,1994, whereby
jurisdiction of civil court is ousted.
CPWD & ANR vs. Airport Authority of India Page No.3 of 10
-- 3 of 10 --
7. Per contra it is argued by the ld. counsel for plaintiff
that premises in question is not an airport premises
and Act is not applicable to the disputed premises.
8. At the outset it is wise to discuss the legal principles
involved in present matter at hand:
Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC reads as follows:
“11. Rejection of plaint.— The plaint shall
be rejected in the following cases:—
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of
action;
(b) where the relief claimed is
undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being
required by the Court to correct the
valuation within a time to be fixed by the
Court, fails to do so;
(c) where the relief claimed is properly
valued, but the plaint is returned upon
paper insufficiently stamped, and the
plaintiff, on being required by the Court to
supply the requisite stamp-paper within a
time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do
so;
(d) where the suit appears from the
statement in the plaint to be barred
by any law;
(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;
(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with
the provisions of rule 9:
Provided that the time fixed by the Court
for the correction of the valuation or
supplying of the requisite stamp-paper
shall not be extended unless the Court, for
reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that
the plaintiff was prevented by any cause
of an exceptional nature from correcting
the valuation or supplying the requisite
stamp-paper, as the case may be, within
the time fixed by the Court and that
refusal to extend such time would cause
grave injustice to the plaintiff.” (emphasis
CPWD & ANR vs. Airport Authority of India Page No.4 of 10
-- 4 of 10 --
supplied)
9. The remedy under Order VII Rule 11 is an
independent and special remedy, wherein the Court is
empowered to summarily dismiss a suit at the
threshold, without proceeding to record evidence, and
conducting a trial, on the basis of the evidence
adduced, if it is satisfied that the action should be
terminated on any of the grounds contained in this
provision1.
10. In Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi2 it was held that
the whole purpose of conferment of powers under this
provision is to ensure that a litigation which is
meaningless, and bound to prove abortive, should not
be permitted to waste judicial time of the court.
11. In recent judgment of Dahiben v. Arvindbhai
Kalyanji Bhanusali3 court placing reliance on
Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V.
Sea Success I & Anr.4, Hardesh Ores (P.) Ltd. v.
Hede & Co5, Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Assistant
Charity Commissioner6, D. Ramachandran v. R.V.
1 Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali 2020 SCCOnline SC 562.
2 1986 Supp. SCC 315
3 supra.
4 (2004) 9 SCC 512.,
5 (2007) 5 SCC 614.,
6 (2004) 3 SCC 137
CPWD & ANR vs. Airport Authority of India Page No.5 of 10
-- 5 of 10 --
Janakiraman,7 Vijay Pratap Singh v. Dukh Haran
Nath Singh,8 Saleem Bhai v. State of
Maharashtra 9 on Order VII Rule 11 to lay down
that:
 The conditions enumerated in Order VII Rule 11
are required to be strictly adhered to.
 Under Order VII Rule 11, a duty is cast on the
Court to determine whether the plaint discloses
a cause of action by scrutinizing the averments
in the plaint, read in conjunction with the
documents relied upon, or whether the suit is
barred by any law.
 At this stage, the pleas taken by the defendant
in the written statement and application for
rejection of the plaint 15 on the merits, would
be irrelevant, and cannot be adverted to, or
taken into consideration.
 The test for exercising the power under Order
VII Rule 11 is that if the averments made in the
plaint are taken in entirety, in conjunction with
the documents relied upon, would the same
result in a decree being passed
 The plaint has to be construed as it stands,
without addition or subtraction of words. If the
allegations in the plaint prima facie show a
cause of action, the court cannot embark upon
an enquiry whether the allegations are true in
fact.
 The power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC may be
exercised by the Court at any stage of the suit,
either before registering the plaint, or after
issuing summons to the defendant, or before
conclusion of the trial.
 The provision of Order VII Rule 11 is mandatory
in nature. It states that the plaint “shall” be
rejected if any of the grounds specified in clause
(a) to (e) are made out. If the Court finds that
the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, or
7 (1999) 3 SCC 267;
8 AIR 1962 SC 941
9 (2003) 1 SCC 557.,
CPWD & ANR vs. Airport Authority of India Page No.6 of 10
-- 6 of 10 --
that the suit is barred by any law, the Court has
no option, but to reject the plaint.
12. Rejection of plaint is sought on the ground that
jurisdiction of civil court is barred by Airport Authority
of India Act, 1994. It is submitted that authority
under the Act, ie. the eviction officer has already
passed the order dated 23.08.2019 after hearing all
parties, and appeal against the order lies to Hon’ble
High Court as per The Tribunal Reforms Act. 2021.
13. Section of 9 of C.P.C deals with the jurisdiction of Civil
Court in general it says that the courts shall (subject
to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to
try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which
their cognisance is either expressly or impliedly
barred.
14. It was held in Dhulha Bhai v. State of Madhya
Pradesh10 that:
(1) Where the statute gives a finality to the
orders of the special tribunals the Civil
Courts' jurisdiction must be held to be ex-
cluded if there is adequate remedy to do
what the Civil Courts would normally do in
a suit. Such provision, however, does not
exclude those cases where the provisions
of the particular Act have not been com-
plied with or the statutory tribunal has not
acted in conformity with the fundamental
principles of judicial procedure.
10 AIR 1969 SC 78
CPWD & ANR vs. Airport Authority of India Page No.7 of 10
-- 7 of 10 --
(2) Where there is an express bar of the juris-
diction of the court, an examination of the
scheme of the particular Act to find the ad-
equacy or the sufficiency of the remedies
provided may be relevant but is not deci-
sive to sustain the jurisdiction of the civil
court.
Where there is no express exclusion the
examination of the remedies and the
scheme of the particular Act to find out the
intendment becomes necessary and the
result of the inquiry may be decisive. In
the latter case it is necessary to see if the
statute creates a special right or a liability
and provides for the determination of the
right or liability and further lays down that
all questions about the said right and lia-
bility shall be determined by the tribunals
so constituted, and whether remedies nor-
mally associated with actions in Civil
Courts are prescribed by the said statute
or not.
(3) Challenge to the provisions of the particu-
lar Act as ultra vires cannot be brought be-
fore Tribunals constituted under that Act.
Even the High Court cannot go into that
question on a revision or reference from
the decision of the Tribunals.
(4) When a provision is already declared un-
constitutional. or the constitutionality of
any provision is to be challenged, a suit is
open. A writ of certiorari may include a di-
rection for refund if the claim is clearly
within the time prescribed by the Limita-
tion Act but it is not a compulsory remedy
to replace a suit.
(5) Where the particular Act contains no
machinery for refund' of tax collected in
excess of constitutional limits or illegally
collected a suit lies.
(6) Questions of the correctness of the
assessment apart from its constitutionality
are for. the decision of the authorities and
a civil suit does not lie if the orders of the
authorities are declared to be final or there
CPWD & ANR vs. Airport Authority of India Page No.8 of 10
-- 8 of 10 --
is an express prohibition in the particular
Act. In either case the scheme of the
particular Act must be examined because
it is a relevant enquiry.
(7) An exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil
Court is not readily to be inferred unless
the conditions above set down apply.
15. Plain reading of plaint reveals that plaintiff has sought
injunction and stay of letter dated 10.07.2018
whereby plaintiff was asked to vacate the suit
premises by the Airport Authority of India. Brief
Transmission Form also reveals that counsel was
appointed for seeking stay on EC. no. 06/18 ie.
proceedings before eviction officer under Airport
Authority of India Act, 1994. Plaintiff has suppressed
the fact that eviction proceedings are already
concluded before the eviction officer.
16. Section 28 K provides that any person aggrieved with
the order of eviction officer may prefer an appeal to
the tribunal. Tribunal reforms Act 2021, has
substituted the tribunals with High Court. Now
Appellate authority against the order of eviction officer
under the Act is High Court.
17. Section 28 M provides that every order made by the
eviction officer, under this chapter shall be final and
shall not be called in question in any suit, application,
CPWD & ANR vs. Airport Authority of India Page No.9 of 10
-- 9 of 10 --
execution or other proceedings.
18. In light of above discussion, jurisdiction of this court is
barred by the law. Suit in its present form is rejected
being barred by law. Application of defendant under
Order 7 Rule 11 (d) is allowed.
19. File be consigned to record room after due
compliance.
[NEHA GUPTA SINGH]
Announced in the open court SCJ-CUM-RC
on 08.07.2022 New Delhi District,
Patiala House Courts,
New Delhi.
CPWD & ANR vs. Airport Authority of India Page No.10 of 10
-- 10 of 10 --