Interim Order 20

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Page No. 1/4
26 Civ Suit 564/24
INDU SHARMA Vs. MOHD IMRAN FAROOQUI
25.03.2026
Present: Sh. M.A. Khan, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
Mohd. Danish, Ld. Counsel for the defendant.
Put up for orders at 4 pm.
Pranat Kumar Joshi
ACJ-cum-ARC-cum-CCJ
North-East/Karkardooma Courts,
Delhi/25.03.2026
At 04:00 PM.
Order on application under Order 7 Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(hereinafter ‘CPC’)
1. The instant application is moved on behalf of Defendant/Applicant
seeking rejection of Plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
Submissions of Defendant/Applicant
2. The defendant assails the maintainability of this suit on the ground that
the suit property mentioned by the Plaintiff is different form the one which is in
possession of the Defendant. Ld Counsel for the Defendant further submits that,
ownership of the Plaintiff is doubtful and title documents do not pertain to the
property in possession of Defendant. It would further be submitted that rent
-- 1 of 4 --
Page No. 2/4
receipts are forged and in view of landlord-tenant relationship being not
admitted, Plaint should be rejected.
Submissions of Non-applicant/Plaintiff
3. Plaintiff submits that under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC the plaint is not to be
seen in isolation, rather the entire plaint is to be considered along-with the
documents on which the plaintiff relies.
4. Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff would submit that it is clear from the bare
reading of Plaint that ownership of suit property vested on the Plaintiff by
operation of Law. It would further be submitted that Plaintiff has filed rent
receipts showing the relationship of landlord and tenant, hence cause of action
is present as such Plaint cannot be rejected.
Analysis and Findings
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
-- 2 of 4 --
Page No. 3/4
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
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
7. 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
8. The position of law being thus, let us examine whether the application
under consideration withstands the legal scrutiny.
9. As per the defendant, the plaint does not disclose the cause of action. The
defendant makes this assertion on the basis that suit property mentioned by the
Plaintiff is different from the one which Defendant possesses and there is no
landlord-tenant relationship shown by the Plaintiff.
10. 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 the plaint shall be rejected.
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.
3 Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. v. Hede & Co., (2007) 5 SCC 614
-- 3 of 4 --
Page No. 4/4
11. In the instant matter, the entire case of the plaintiff rests on the premise
that suit property is in occupation and possession of the Defendant. We have
seen that while considering application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the
averments in the Plaint are presumed to be true for that limited purpose. On this
basis, the averment regarding suit property being in possession of Defendant is
evident, rent receipts purportedly singed by Defendant in favour of Plaintiff
with respect to suit property is evident, and description of suit property
mentioned in the rent receipt purportedly singed by the Defendant is evident.
12. The argument of the Defendant that he is not in possession of suit
property, his signatures on rent receipts are forged, and there is no proof to show
landlord-tenant relationship are facts which can only be proved by leading
evidence.
13. Thus, merely 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 any law.
Conclusion
14. In the light of the foregoing discussion of law and facts, the plaint
apparently discloses a triable cause of action. Ergo, the application moved by
defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is rejected without costs.
15. Another application filed by the Plaintiff is under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.
Arguments have been heard already upon that application. The same be listed
for orders on 16.04.2026.
Pranat Kumar Joshi
ACJ-cum-ARC-cum-CCJ
North-East/Karkardooma Courts,
Delhi/25.03.2026
-- 4 of 4 --