Order 31

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 20 Civ Suit 547/23
RAJDULARI Vs. PARVEEN KUMAR
01.06.2026
Present: Sh. Anil Naagar & Ms. Sakshi Jain, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff
alongwith plaintiff.
Sh. Neeraj Khatana, Ld. Proxy Counsel for the defendant.
Put up for orders at 4 pm.
Sh. Pranat Kumar Joshi
ACJ-cum-ARC-cum-CCJ
North-East/Karkardooma Courts,
Delhi/01.06.2026
At 4: 00 PM.
Present: None.
Order on application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC
1. The instant application was filed by defendant no.1 seeking rejection of
plaint. The arguments of Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 1 were recorded
in detail in order dated 08.05.2026, hence they are not being reproduced
to avoid repetition. The opportunity of the plaintiff to file the reply and
address arguments was closed vide order dated 08.05.2026.
2. 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;
……….
Page 1 to 6
-- 1 of 6 --
d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred
by any law;
3. 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
4. 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
5. 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
6. The position of law being thus, let us examine whether the application
under consideration withstands the legal scrutiny.
7. The grounds on which the defendant assails the maintainability of the suit
is that defendant no. 1 has no concern with the suit property and the
plaintiff is trying to encroach upon the property of defendant no.1. Insofar
as this ground is concerned, the perusal of plaint reveals specific
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
Page 2 to 6
-- 2 of 6 --
averments against defendant no. 1, hence it cannot be said that he is
stranger to the lis. Further, the submission regarding plaintiff’s
encroachment over the suit property stems from the disputed identity of
suit property. Prima facie both parties describe the same property
differently. This issue can only be decided after the trial as the burden
will be upon the plaintiff to establish the identity of suit property in terms
of Order VII Rule 3 CPC. This is no ground under Order VII Rule 11
CPC to reject the suit. Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 1 would also argue
that the property with description C-24 does not exist, hence the suit must
be rejected. In that regard, it is clear from the order dated 28.11.2023 that
this Court had allowed the amendment of the application under Order VI
Rule 17 CPC moved on behalf of plaintiff and held that suit property
must be read as such, which mentions the property number as C-24.
Moreover, this argument also pertains to the identity of the suit property
and it is reiterated at the cost of repetition that the same is the subject
matter of trial. Hence, these grounds are not sustainable.
8. Another ground taken by defendant no. 1 is that as per plaintiff’s own
admission, defendant nos. 3 and 4 had executed forged documents of suit
property in her favour and an FIR was also registered against them.
Hence, by very admission the suit should be rejected.
9. This court cannot lose sight of the fact that judgment on admission is a
discretionary relief which is taken care of by Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
Admission of certain facts in the plaint is not the ground to reject an
application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC because of the narrow compass
within which the power under this provision is exercised. Hence, this
ground also lacks merit.
Page 3 to 6
-- 3 of 6 --
10.Last ground taken by defendant no. 1 is that since a cloud has been raised
over the title of the plaintiff, the suit must be rejected in the light of
Anathula Sudhakar Versus P. Buchchi Reddy, (2008) 4 SCC 59.
11.It is a ubiquitously known legal position 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 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
Page 4 to 6
-- 4 of 6 --
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. However, the court cannot look into
any documents of defendants under the scope provided for the present
application.
Page 5 to 6
-- 5 of 6 --
14.Thus, reliance on Anathula (supra) does not attract rigors of Order VII
Rule 11 CPC.
15.Accordingly, for the reasons mentioned above, the present application is
dismissed. No order as to costs.
16.List the matter for arguments on application under Order XXXIX Rule 2
A CPC on 09.07.2026.
Sh. Pranat Kumar Joshi
ACJ-cum-ARC-cum-CCJ
North-East/Karkardooma Courts,
Delhi/01.06.2026
Page 6 to 6
-- 6 of 6 --