Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 19 Civ Suit 313/24
Jugender Singh
Vs.
Dushyant
11.08.2025
Present: Ms. Meenu, Ld. counsel for plaintiff alongwith
plaintiff no. 2.
Sh. Badam Singh, Ld. Counsel for D-2/Anjali.
Arguments advanced on an application u/o 7 Rule 11
CPC.
It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the
plaintiff has not specifically not mentioned that how much
portion of the suit property is in possession of
applicant/defendant no. 2. It is further submitted that the plaintiff
has not disclosed any cause of action against defendant no. 2.
Per contra, it is submitted on behalf of plaintiff that
the specific prayer has already been made in the prayer clause
regarding peaceful enjoyment of suit property by plaintiff and
plaintiff has specifically averred that how defendant no. 2 got
married and is coming frequently to house of plaintiff so as to
have cause of action against the defendant.
It is settled law that while considering an application
under Order VII Rule XI CPC and the prayer for rejection of the
plaint, only averments of plaint are material and can be taken into
consideration and any evidence or averments made in the written
statement cannot be considered.
-- 1 of 3 --
In
Nusli Neville Wadia Vs. Ivory Properties and
Ors. (2020) 6 SCC 557 (Judgment dated 04.10.2019), a reference
judgment by a three-judge bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court, it
has been noted as follows:
“63. ……What is of significance under Order VII Rule 11
is that from the averments of plaint itself the suit is barred
by any law and it would include limitation also including
bar created by any other law for the time being in force. For
the rejection of plaint, averments made by the defendant in
the written statement or otherwise cannot be seen, only the
averments of the plaint are material and can be taken into
consideration and no other evidence.”
In
Ramisetty Venkatanna & Anr. Versus Nasyam
Jamal Saheb & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 2717 of 2023 (Judgment
dated 28.04.2023) Hon’ble Supreme Court has noted as follows:
“7.1 Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of
this Court in the case of Nusli Neville Wadia (supra) is
concerned, again there cannot be any dispute with respect to
the proposition of law laid down by this Court that while
deciding the application under Order VII Rule XI, mainly
the averments in the plaint only are required to be
considered and not the averments in the written statement.
….”
From the above noted facts, it is clear that the
plaintiff has explained cause of action in his favour. The defense
of the defendant as taken in her Written Statement can not be
considered at this stage. Whether actual cause of action lies in
favour of the plaintiff or not can be decided only after adducing
evidence and appreciating the same. The non-filing of site plan
by plaintiff do not attract any provision envisaged u/o 7 Rule 11
CPC.
In view of the above noted facts and expositions of
law, the application u/o VII Rule 11 CPC is dismissed.
-- 2 of 3 --
It is submitted from both the sides that the parties to
suit are willing to explore the possibility of Mediation.
Both the parties are directed to appear in person on
next date of hearing.
It be relisted on 23.08.2025 at 02:00 PM.
(Ajay Kumar Malik)
JSCC/ASCJ/G. Judge(N/E)
11.08.2025
-- 3 of 3 --