Interim Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: (1)
IN THE COURT OF ASHISH AGGARWAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-03, NORTH-WEST DISTRICT,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:
CS No. 502/2025
Ravinder Pershad Jain
S/o Late Sh. Padam Prasad Jain
R/o C-8/2 Rana Pratap Bagh
Delhi ........ Plaintiff
Versus
M/S Delhi Land & Finance Universal Limited
Through Its Director
Office of DLF Centre
Sansad Marg New Delhi-110001
Also at
Shopping Mall Complex Phase-1
Arjun Marg DLF Quatab Enclave Gurgaon
(Now Gurugram), Haryana ........ Defendant
25.09.2025 (At 04.00 p.m.)
Present : Sh. Rohan Anand, Ld. counsel for defendant through VC.
Order
1. By this order, I shall decide the oral request made on behalf of the
defendant for rejection of plaint.
2. By the present suit, the plaintiff has sought damages to the extent of
Rs. Two Crores. It is stated in the plaint that MCD has represented a
parcel of land measuring 52,533 Sq. Yard in Mahaldar Khan Garden,
Sadhora Kalan Estate to be belonging to one Sardar Hardayal Singh;
that Sardar Hardayal Singh handed over the land to the defendant for
development into residential colony now known as Rana Pratap Bagh,
-- 1 of 8 --
(2)
Delhi; that one Sardar Jasbeer Singh was owner of 70,022 Sq. Yards in
Mahaldar Khan Garden, Sadhora Kalan Estate and he entered into an
agreement with the defendant for development of the said land and
authorized the defendant to dispose of plots after development.
3. It is further stated in the plaint that MCD has represented that as per
agreement and power of attorney, the defendant developed lands
belonging to Sardar Hardayal Singh and Sardar Jasbeer Singh into a
residential colony now known as Rana Pratap Bagh; that lay out plans
of the colony were approved by Municipal Committee / Delhi
Development Provisional Authorities; that lay out plan of the area was
approved in the year 1958 and was amended from time to time; that as
per deed of settlement dated 24.07.1989 between defendant and MCD,
land earmarked for community / common services were handed over
by the defendant to MCD; that the defendant handed over eight sites to
MCD free of cost for public utilities; that these sites were shown as
reserved sites; that a large plot of land measuring 3000 Sq. Yards,
divided into five plots, was handed over by the defendant to MCD for
community purposes.
4. It is further stated in the plaint that MCD filed a suit bearing CS (OS)
No.1349/2015 titled NDMC Vs. Veera Builders and Ors. for
declaration and possession of this plot; that the said suit was dismissed;
that the MCD filed an appeal in which it was held that MCD has no
right in the said property.
5. It is further stated in the plaint that the plaintiff and his wife are owners
of property bearing no.C-8/2, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi; that DLF and
MCD have no right in the said property; that the plaintiff was
-- 2 of 8 --
(3)
compelled to face false litigation inspite of being a senior citizen and
had to spend money on litigation; that the defendant has maligned the
reputation of the plaintiff in the community and has started spreading
false and baseless rumours of illegality in order to defame the plaintiff
in the society and to cause mental trauma to the plaintiff; that the
defendant has filed false petitions with reckless allegations; that when
such allegations were made by the defendant against the plaintiff, the
relatives and neighbours of the plaintiff questioned the plaintiff about
the said allegations and the reputation of the plaintiff was lowered in
the estimation of others; that the defendant made allegations about the
character of the plaintiff knowing and having reason to believe that
false imputation would harm the reputation and career of the plaintiff.
6. Based upon the aforesaid allegations, the plaintiff has prayed for
damages to the extent of Rs. Two Crores from the defendant.
7. Ld. Counsel for defendant has verbally prayed for rejection of the
plaint on the ground that there has been no defamatory act imputed to
the defendant.
8. It is trite that at this nascent stage of the suit, averments made in the
plaint are to be deemed to be correct.
9. I find from the plaint that there are assertions in paragraph nos. 13 to
17 of the plaint which tend to show that indeed there were imputations
made on behalf of the defendant that lowered the image and reputation
of the plaintiff. Whether these assertions are true or not cannot be gone
into at this stage. I also find that certain dates are conspicuously absent
from the plaint but that too is not a ground to presume that the
defamatory acts would have taken place considerable time ago.
-- 3 of 8 --
(4)
10. Although reading of the plaint shows that its drafting is far from
perfect, and at places it even lacks coherence, that is no ground to
disbelieve the assertions made in the plaint or to summarily reject the
plaint. Instead, the plaintiff may be given a chance to amend the plaint,
to disclose relevant details and to rectify the errors in drafting.
In this behalf, I may refer to one of the earliest cases on this point, in
which Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case titled Nannu Mal v. Ram
Prasad, First Appeal No. 72 of 1925, decided on 19.02.1926, held as
follows:
“As a general rule, however wide and unsatisfactory a
claim in the plaint may be, it is better for the Munsif or
the trial Court to take the plaintiff’s evidence before he
dismisses it. The evidence of the plaintiff may improve
the plaint and the plaintiff may, if no evidence at all is
taken, open up argument in the appellate Court as to
whether it is not possible for the plaintiff to make out
some sort of a case at the trial. In the second place, as a
general rule, an amendment, which is sought to be
made by the plaintiff’s pleader before the trial with a
view to curing a defect in the pleading or bring the
matter more clearly before the Court of including some
matter, which the plaintiff omitted to inform his
pleader, ought to be allowed.”
11. In my opinion, it is the duty of the court to make an attempt to discern
the intention of the plaintiff by trying to cull out facts from the plaint
and accompanying documents.
In the case of Ram Sarup Gupta (Dead) By LRs vs Bishun Narain Inter
College & Ors 1987 SCR (2) 805, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
observed as follows:
-- 4 of 8 --
(5)
“It is also equally settled that no party should be
permitted to travel beyond its pleading and that all
necessary and material facts should be pleaded by the
party in support of the case set up by it. The object and
purpose of pleading is to enable the adversary party to
know the case it has to meet. In order to have a fair trial
it is imperative that the party should state the essential
material facts so that other party may not be taken by
surprise. The pleadings however should receive a liberal
construction, no pedantic approach should be adopted to
defeat justice on hair split- ting technicalities.
Sometimes, pleadings are expressed in words which
may not expressly make out a case in accordance with
strict interpretation of law, in such a case it is the duty of
the Court to ascertain the substance of the plead- ings to
determine the question. It is not desirable to place undue
emphasis on form, instead the substance of the pleadings
should be considered. Whenever the question about lack
of pleading is raised the enquiry should not be so much
about the form of the pleadings, instead; the court must
find out whether in substance the parties knew the case
and the issues upon which they went to trial.”
12. It is settled law that mere absence of particulars, sketchy pleadings or
the plaint not being comprehensive, cannot be a ground to reject a
plaint. Superior courts have often emphasized that the power under
Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure must be applied with care.
The plaint can be rejected only if it is manifestly frivolous or barred by
law. Disputed factual questions cannot be gone into under Order 7
Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure.
Reference may be made to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of P.V. Guru Raj Reddy v. P. Neeradha Reddy (2015) 8 SCC
331, in which it was held as follows:
-- 5 of 8 --
(6)
“Rejection of the plaint under Order VII rule 11 of the
CPC is a drastic power conferred in the court to terminate a
civil action at the threshold. The conditions precedent to the
exercise of power under Order VII rule 11, therefore, are
stringent and have been consistently held to be so by the
Court. It is the averments in the plaint that has to be read as
a whole to find out whether it discloses a cause of action or
whether the suit is barred under any law.”
13.Reading the point as a whole reveals that the plaintiff has pleaded not
only that the defendant made assertions which caused loss of
reputation but also that the defendant purported to hand over property
belonging to the plaintiff to MCD for community use which shows
usurpation of rights and denial of proprietorship, on account of which
the plaintiff was not able to enjoy his property to the fullest.
14. This court is conscous that its power to reject a plaint is an exceptional
jurisdiction which should be exercised sparingly and only where from
the averments on the face of the plaint it is manifest that the plaint does
not disclose any cause of action, or the suit appears to be barred by any
law, or other grounds exist which are authorized by the Code of Civil
Procedure.
15. Although the title of the plaint proclaims the suit to be for recovery of
damages and defamation, reading the plaint shows that the plaintiff is
aggrieved by the defendant allegedly aiding and conniving with MCD
to lay claim over the property of the plaintiff. In the plaint, the
plaintiff seems to be trying to make out a continuing cause of action
and is complaining of certain acts of the defendant which the plaintiff
states have caused injury to his reputation and have resulted in loss and
damages. The plaint therefore raises the following questions of fact
-- 6 of 8 --
(7)
and law: (i) the title/ownership status of the suit property (C-8/2 and
allied plots), (ii) whether the defendant ever claimed any proprietary
right in, or power to dispose of, the suit property, (iii) whether the
defendant at any time purported to transfer or hand over the suit
property to MCD (or any municipal body) and the nature and effect of
any such transfer, (iv) whether the pleadings or acts in the other
proceedings relied upon by the defendant/plaintiff amounted to
defamatory publication, (v) whether the defendant circulated pleadings
or assertions made against the plaintiff. These are matters which
cannot be decided at this stage, without affording to the plaintiff the
chance to amend the plaint and to make his intention clear. It is not the
objective of the court to allow either party to steal a march over the
adversary by trying advantage of unintelligible pleadings.
16. I am unable to accede to the oral prayer of the defendant for
immediate rejection of the plaint. In my opinion, the flaws in the
plaint, which are open to rectification, cannot be used to infer that the
plaintiff has no cause of action or that the assertions made in plaint are
false. The prayer made on the behalf of the defendant is therefore
declined being premature, while leaving all contentions open. The
plaintiff is at liberty to seek amendment of his plaint to bring greater
clarity on his cause of action.
17. Further, in order to elicit the real matters in controversy, it is ordered
that on the next date, the authorized representative of the defendant
shall file an affidavit disclosing whether the plot bearing no. C-8/2,
Rana Pratap Bagh was purported by the defendant to be handed over to
MCD for use as a public utility / common service and if so, was this
-- 7 of 8 --
(8)
handing over done in order to have the layout plan sanctioned or was it
a part of a settlement. It must also be informed as to whether this lay-
out plan, if any, was, at any time, got rectified by the defendant on
realising that DLF had no right to so transfer the land to MCD. The
representative of the defendant must also state on affidavit whether
there has been communication between the defendant and MCD (or
any predecessor municipal authority) concerning the plaintiff or his
property. If so, copies of such communications, plan approvals or
rejections shall be produced. Particulars of litigation initiated by the
defendant and the defendant’s pleadings in any suit concerning the
plaintiff or his property shall also be furnished. Whether the defendant,
its employees or agents have made, filed or circulated any pleadings,
statements or allegations regarding the plaintiff or his property shall
also be disclosed.
Renotify on 25.10.2025.
(Ashish Aggarwal)
District Judge-III
North-West District,
Rohini Courts, Delhi
25.09.2025
-- 8 of 8 --