Order 12

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Civ Suit 585/24 Green Garden Education Society Registered.(Senior Citizen) Vs. Smt Babita page no. 1/5
Civ Suit 585/24
GREEN GARDEN EDUCATION SOCIETY REGISTERED.(SENIOR
CITIZEN) Vs. SMT BABITA
12.03.2026
Order
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of the application moved under Order 7 Rule
11 CPC by the defendant.
Submissions of applicant/defendant
2. The defendant assails the maintainability of this suit on the ground that the
suit property was sold by the sons of plaintiff to the defendant. The sale
deed of this suit property bears the signature of AR of plaintiff as a witness,
hence the plaintiff through AR cannot claim that suit property was sold
without his information. The defendant further submits that in Para 5 of the
plaint, AR claims co-ownership of the suit property whereas the AR of
plaintiff himself is the witness of sale deed as such he cannot challenge it
and hence there is no cause of action in his favour.
3. The defendant further submits that para 6 of the plaint categorically
mentions that the purchased land is a vacant plot. Once the suit property is
admitted to be a vacant plot, the issue of illegal demolition of Plaintiff’s
school in suit property does not arise. Moreover, the averment of plaintiff
that construction material is lying at the suit property is an afterthought and
the plaintiff is going beyond the pleadings as no photographs have been
filed to substantiate such claim.
4. The defendant further submits that as per sale deed the suit property was
sold in the year 2023 whereas the plaint mentions the date of sale of suit
property in the year of 2024.
-- 1 of 5 --
Civ Suit 585/24 Green Garden Education Society Registered.(Senior Citizen) Vs. Smt Babita page no. 2/5
Submissions of Non-applicant/Plaintiff
5. 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. Thus, even though due to a
typographical error if the year of sale has been mentioned as 2024 in the
plaint, the same is clear from the sale deed that the year of sale was 2023.
Thus, factum of sale cannot be denied.
6. Plaintiff further submits that the present suit has been instituted to injunct
the defendant from carrying out any demolition activities because there is
construction material lying at the suit property which threatens the
demolition of school situated in the suit property. Plaintiff submits that WS
filed by MCD clearly mentions about the front portion of the plot being
covered by wind breaking wall in the shape of iron sheets.
Issues
7. Two issues emerge out of the instant application.
First, whether the plaint does not disclose any cause of action?
Second, whether the plaint is barred by any law?
Law
8. 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;
……………..
-- 2 of 5 --
Civ Suit 585/24 Green Garden Education Society Registered.(Senior Citizen) Vs. Smt Babita page no. 3/5
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any
law;
……………
9. 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
10.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
11.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
Analysis
12.The position of law being thus, let us examine whether the application under
consideration withstands the legal scrutiny.
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 5 --
Civ Suit 585/24 Green Garden Education Society Registered.(Senior Citizen) Vs. Smt Babita page no. 4/5
13.As per the defendant, the plaint does not disclose the cause of action. The
defendant makes this assertion on the basis that plaintiff has himself signed the
sale deed to the defendant as witness and contradictorily claims that suit
property was sold without his knowledge despite being a co-sharer.
14.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.
15.In the instant matter, the entire case of the plaintiff rests on the premise that suit
property was sold without informing him despite being co-sharer. It is thus a
matter of trial to examine how the signature bearing the name of plaintiff is
featured in the list of witnesses in the sale deed. This fact can only be proved
by leading evidence and no conclusion can be drawn about it from mere
perusal of the plaint and document.
16.The plaint also contain an averment to the fact that the chain of documents
relied upon while executing the sale deed in favour of the defendant was also
forged. This again is a fact that can only be proved by leading evidence.
17.Thus, merely on perusal of plaint and documents, it cannot be concluded that
the plaint does not disclose any cause of action.
18.The next limb of argument being mention of wrong year in the plaint, it is
conceded by the plaintiff during arguments that it is an inadvertent
typographical error and if read with document of sale deed, the correct year of
sale is reflected as 2023. This court is in agreement with the argument of Ld.
Counsel for the plaintiff that a mere typographical error which can be
explained in subsequent stages of trial cannot in itself be a ground to reject the
plaint.
-- 4 of 5 --
Civ Suit 585/24 Green Garden Education Society Registered.(Senior Citizen) Vs. Smt Babita page no. 5/5
19.Another limb of argument pertains purely to appreciation of facts i.e. whether
there is construction material at the suit property and whether there is actual
threat of demolition to the plaintiff’s school building. It is the assertion of the
plaintiff which has been denied by the defendant. We cannot lose sight of the
fact that in considering the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the
defence contained in Written Statement cannot be considered. Hence, this
argument merely tantamounts to dispute over a fact which can only be proved
by leading evidence and no conclusion can be drawn regarding the same by the
perusal of plaint.
20.We have seen that entire plaint must be seen in order to determine the fate of
the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and piecemeal consideration of the
plaint is something which is forbidden by law.4
Conclusion
21.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.
Pranat Kumar Joshi
ACJ-cum-ARC-cum-CCJ
North-East/Karkardooma Courts,
Delhi/12.03.2026
4 Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd., Supra
-- 5 of 5 --