Order 20

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Page No. 1/5
17 Civ Suit 210/24
MANJU RANI Vs. ANJALI MALIK
01.04.2026
Present: None for the plaintiff.
Sh. R.K. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the defendant
alongwith defendant.
Order on application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC
1. Instant application has been filed on behalf of Defendant Number 1
(hereinafter D1) seeking rejection of Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter ‘CPC’).
Submissions of applicant/defendant
2. The defendant assails the maintainability of the instant suit only on
one ground. The defendant submits that Plaintiff is admittedly not in
possession of suit property, thus, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the case titled as
Anathula Sudhakar versus P.
Buchi Reddy, (2008) 4 SCC 59, the instant suit is not maintainable. Ld.
Counsel for defendant would further submit that Plaintiff has failed to
seek possession and filed a suit for injunction simpliciter. To cull out the
admission, Ld. Counsel for D 1 relies upon Paragraph No. 3, 5 and 6 of
the Plaint. To ascertain the cloud being under title, reliance is placed upon
WS as per which the suit property is a Benami Property.
Submissions of Plaintiff
3. The Plaintiff would oppose the above application and state that
Plaintiff is still in the possession of suit property. Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff
would submit that D1 occupies the first floor of the suit property and
Plaintiff occupies the ground floor and the second floor.
-- 1 of 5 --
Page No. 2/5
Analysis and Findings
4. The issue before this court is whether an objection in the light of
the judgment in
Anathula (supra) could bring a Plaint within the ambit of
Order VII Rule 11 CPC?
5. In the light of factual expose concerning rejection of plaint, it is
beneficial to see where the law stands.
Inter alia Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) states thus: -
The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:-
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
……………..
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred
by any law;
……………
6. The underlying object of Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC is that if no
cause of action is disclosed in the plaint or the suit is barred by any law
under Rule 11(d), Court would not permit the Plaintiff to unnecessarily
protract the proceedings in the suit and in such a case, it would be
necessary to put an end to the sham litigation, so that further judicial time
is not wasted.1
7. While exercising power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC the only test
to ascertain if the plaint discloses a cause of action and/or is not barred by
law, is to examine the plaint and the plaint alone in conjunction with the
documents filed with the plaint.2
1 Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead through Legal
Representatives, (2020) 7 SCC 366
2 Liverpool & London S.P. & I Association Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I, (2004) 9
SCC 512.
-- 2 of 5 --
Page No. 3/5
8. It is not permissible to cull out a sentence or passage from the
plaint and read the same in isolation. It is the substance and not merely
the form which has to be looked into. The plaint must be construed as it
stands, without addition or subtraction of words and only if on a
meaningful reading it is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and
meritless, the power to reject the plaint must be exercised.3
9. The position of law being thus, let us examine whether the
application under consideration withstands the legal scrutiny.
10. As per the defendant, the Plaintiff is admittedly not in possession
of suit property thus the suit is not maintainable.
11. It is a trite law that in application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC only
the plaint and documents of plaintiff alone must be seen. If on bare
perusal of the same, the cause of action is not apparent or it appears to be
barred by any law, the plaint shall be rejected. This court cannot lose
sight of the fact that scope of rejection of Plaint under Order VII Rule 11
CPC is extremely narrow, being a claim of demur.
12. It is not in all cases where Plaintiff is not in possession of suit
property, a suit for title must be brought. It is only when cloud is cast over
the Plaintiff’s title the comprehensive suit for title must be filed. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Anathula (supra) would observe thus:
14. We may, however, clarify that a prayer for declaration
will be necessary only if the denial of title by the defendant
or challenge to the plaintiff's title raises a cloud on the title
of the plaintiff to the property. A cloud is said to raise over a
person's title, when some apparent defect in his title to a
property, or when some prima facie right of a third party
3 Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. v. Hede & Co., (2007) 5 SCC 614
-- 3 of 5 --
Page No. 4/5
over it, is made out or shown. An action for declaration, is
the remedy to remove the cloud on the title to the property.
On the other hand, where the plaintiff has clear title
supported by documents, if a trespasser without any claim to
title or an interloper without any apparent title, merely
denies the plaintiff's title, it does not amount to raising a
cloud over the title of the plaintiff and it will not be
necessary for the plaintiff to sue for declaration and a suit for
injunction may be sufficient. Where the plaintiff, believing
that the defendant is only a trespasser or a wrongful claimant
without title, files a mere suit for injunction, and in such a
suit, the defendant discloses in his defence the details of the
right or title claimed by him, which raise a serious dispute or
cloud over the plaintiff's title, then there is a need for the
plaintiff, to amend the plaint and convert the suit into one for
declaration. Alternatively, he may withdraw the suit for bare
injunction, with permission of the court to file a
comprehensive suit for declaration and injunction. He may
file the suit for declaration with consequential relief, even
after the suit for injunction is dismissed, where the suit
raised only the issue of possession and not any issue of title.
xxx xxx xxx
(Emphasis Supplied)
13. The upshot of above discussion is that the existence of cloud can
only be ascertained if it is shown by the Defendant either through its
pleadings and documents or through evidence, which is not permissible
-- 4 of 5 --
Page No. 5/5
under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Even if Plaintiff is deemed to be out of
possession at this stage for the sake of argument even though the Plaintiff
claims to be in Possession, the cloud over Plaintiff’s title is not apparent
from the perusal of the Plaint.
14. Thus, reliance on
Anathula (supra) does not attract rigors of Order
VII Rule 11 CPC. Accordingly, I conclude that on perusal of plaint and
documents, it cannot be concluded that the plaint does not disclose any
cause of action or it is barred by law or it is undervalued.
15. The instant application is accordingly rejected without costs.
Pranat Kumar Joshi
ACJ-cum-ARC-cum-CCJ
North-East/Karkardooma Courts,
Delhi/01.04.2026
-- 5 of 5 --