Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: CS DJ 676/25 MANPREET KAUR AND ORS. Vs. JASWINDER SINGH
	Page no.1/5
CS DJ 676/25
MANPREET KAUR AND ORS. Vs. JASWINDER SINGH
11.05.2026
Present: Sh. Sadanand Kumar and Sh. Amit Kumar, Counsel for the
plaintiffs.
Sh. Sunil Soni, counsel for the defendant with defendant.
Counsel for the defendant presses his application u/o 7 rule
11 CPC dated 21.01.2026.
Counsel for the defendant contends that Sh. Jaswinder Singh
– defendant is brother of late Sh. Harvinder Singh. Sh. Harvinder Singh is
survived by his widow and two children – plaintiffs. The plaintiffs in
essence claim that late Sh. Nirmal Singh, father of Sh. Jaswinder and Sh.
Harvinder Singh could not execute Gift Deed dated 30.06.2022 in favour
of defendant as the suit property was constructed out of joint family
funds.
FIRST ARGUMENT
1. Counsel for the defendant contends that there is no document to
show that husband of plaintiff no.1 contributed in purchase of suit property
and thus, the plaint discloses no cause of action.
2. Per contra, counsel for the plaintiff contends that as per averments
in para no.2 of the preliminary submissions in the amended suit, husband
of plaintiff no.1 contributed. Suit property was not exclusive acquisition of
late Sh. Nirmal Singh. These facts require evidence and trial. At this stage,
averments in the plaint, are to be taken as true.
-- 1 of 5 --
CS DJ 676/25 MANPREET KAUR AND ORS. Vs. JASWINDER SINGH
	Page no.2/5
SECOND ARGUMENT
3. Counsel for the defendant contends that present suit is barred by
limitation as Gift Deed dated 30.06.2022 has been challenged on
15.09.2025.
4. Per contra, counsel for the plaintiff that as per averments in para 21
of the amended plaint, the cause of action accrued after knowledge of Gift
Deed in August, 2025 after defendant filed injunction suit. Reliance is
placed upon Article 59 of the Limitation Act to contend that starting point
of limitation is when the document to be set aside, becomes known.
Limitation is a mixed question of law and facts. Same will require evidence
and trial.
SCOPE OF INTERFERENCE BY THIS COURT :
5. Instead of referring to all the judicial precedent laid down by the
apex court in this regard, it would be apposite to refer to the case of
Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra, reported in(2003) 1 SCC 557. , the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, while discussing the factors to be considered by
the Courts in exercise of power under ORDER 7 Rule 11 CPC , has held
that:
6. Order 7 Rule 11 CPC reads as under:
“Rejection of plaint.—The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases—
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff,
on being required by the court to correct the valuation within a
time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so;
-- 2 of 5 --
CS DJ 676/25 MANPREET KAUR AND ORS. Vs. JASWINDER SINGH
	Page no.3/5
(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is
written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on
being required by the court to supply the requisite stamp paper
within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be
barred by any law;
(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;
(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule
Provided that the time fixed by the court for the correction of the
valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp papers shall not be
extended unless the court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied
that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional
nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite
stamp papers, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the
court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave
injustice to the plaintiff.”
15. A perusal of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC makes it clear that the
relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an
application thereunder are the averments in the plaint. The trial
court can exercise the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC at any
stage of the suit — before registering the plaint or after issuing
summons to the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the
trial. For the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a)
and (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 CPC, the averments in the plaint are
germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement
would be wholly irrelevant at that stage, therefore, a direction to
file the written statement without deciding the application under
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC cannot but be procedural irregularity
touching the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court. The order,
-- 3 of 5 --
CS DJ 676/25 MANPREET KAUR AND ORS. Vs. JASWINDER SINGH
	Page no.4/5
therefore, suffers from non-exercising of the jurisdiction vested in
the court as well as procedural irregularity. The High Court,
however, did not advert to these aspects …….. ”
FINDINGS
7. Heard. File perused.
8. Perusal of record shows that Sh. Jaswinder Singh – defendant is
brother of late Sh. Harvinder Singh. Sh. Harvinder Singh is survived by
his widow and two children – plaintiffs. The plaintiffs in essence claim that
late Sh. Nirmal Singh, father of Sh. Jaswinder and Sh. Harvinder Singh
could not execute Gift Deed dated 30.06.2022 in favour of defendant as
the suit property was constructed out of joint family funds.
FINDINGS ON FIRST ARGUMENT
9. Submissions on behalf of the defendant that there is no document
to show that husband of plaintiff no.1 contributed in purchase of suit
property and thus, the plaint discloses no cause of action, are without
merits as :
10. Perusal of record shows that as per averments in para no.2 of the
preliminary submissions in the amended suit, husband of plaintiff no.1
contributed. Suit property was not exclusive acquisition of late Sh. Nirmal
Singh. These facts require evidence and trial. At this stage, averments in
the plaint, are to be taken as true. Suit cannot be rejected at this stage
without opportunity to plaintiffs, as per law.
FINDINGS ON SECOND ARGUMENT
-- 4 of 5 --
CS DJ 676/25 MANPREET KAUR AND ORS. Vs. JASWINDER SINGH
	Page no.5/5
11. Submissions on behalf of the defendant that present suit is barred
by limitation as Gift Deed dated 30.06.2022 has been challenged on
15.09.2025. Further submissions that plaint be rejected on this ground, are
without merits. These submissions are rejected :
12. Perusal of record shows that as per averments in para 21 of the
amended plaint, the cause of action accrued after knowledge of Gift Deed
in August, 2025 after defendant filed injunction suit. Reliance is rightly
placed by counsel for the plaintiff upon Article 59 of the Limitation Act to
contend that starting point of limitation is when the document to be set
aside, becomes known. Limitation is a mixed question of law and facts.
Same will require evidence and trial.
13. Application u/o 7 rule 11 CPC dated 21.01.2026, is dismissed.
14. To come up for completion of pleadings of the parties, filing of
affidavit of admission/denial of the documents, for framing of the issues
on 08.09.2026.
(VIKRAM BALI)
DISTRICT JUDGE-2/NORTH/ ROHINI
COURT/DELHI/11.05.2026
-- 5 of 5 --