Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CS SCJ 266-23
SHYAM SUNDER
Vs.
ANAND PRAKASH
01.03.2024
ORDER
1. Vide this order I shall dispose off the application u/o VII
Rule 11 CPC.
2. The brief facts of the case are that as per the plaintiff, the
father of the plaintiff sold the ancestral property and
purchased property bearing no. 2223/169, Ganeshpura -B,
Tri Nagar, Delhi (hereinafter suit property). That he
executed a Will dated 03.06.1999 by way of which he
divided the suit property in equal shares amongst his sons.
That defendant no. 2 had filed a civil suit against the
plaintiff and defendant no. 3 and the plaintiff on receipt of
summons for the same on 24.06.2017 came to know for
the first time that the suit property has allegedly been sold
by his father to defendant no. 1 on 10.08.1992 which was
further sold by defendant no. 1 to defendant no. 2 on
22.11.1994. That the documents in favour of defendant no.
1 & 2 are forged and fabricated documents. Hence the
present suit.
3. The present application has been filed on behalf of the
defendant no. 1 & 2 wherein it is submitted that the present
suit is not maintainable as the same is barred by limitation.
It is submitted that as per own version of the plaintiff,
-- 1 of 4 --
cause of action arose on 24.06.2017 thus making the
present suit beyond the prescribed period of limitation. It is
prayed that the present application be dismissed.
4. The plaintiff has denied the contents of the present
application and has prayed that the same be dismissed.
5. Arguments on behalf of both the parties heard. Record
perused.
6. The grounds for rejecting a plaint U/O VII Rule 11 are
very limited. The plaint can be rejected only if the
defendant is able to show that the ground is covered by
clause (a) – (f) of Order VII Rule 11. The grounds for
rejection of plaint very limited. It is a settled law that for
the purpose of decision of an application u/o VII Rule 11
CPC, the Court should only consider the plaint and the
documents accompanying the plaint and nothing else. The
averments of the plaint, without addition or subtraction,
without any compartmentalization or dissection, must
show that the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 CPC are
attracted. The defence of the defendants is not to be
considered. While considering the prayer to reject the
plaint on the ground that the plaint does not disclose a
cause of action the plaint must be taken to admit, for the
sake of arguments, that the allegations of the plaintiff are
true in manner and form. The power to reject the plaint
must be exercised only if the court comes to the conclusion
-- 2 of 4 --
that even if all the allegations if taken to be proved, the
plaintiff would not be entitled to any relief whatsoever.
Reference may be made to the judgments titled Popat and
Kotecha Properties V/s. State Bank of India Staff
Association, 2005 (7) SCC 510; Inspiration Clothes v/s/
M/s. Colby International Ltd., 88 (2000) DLT 769 (DB);
Liverpool & London S.P. & I Asson. Ltd. V/s. M.V. Sea
Success 2004 (9) SCC 512, Sopan Sukhdeo Sable V/s.
Assistant Charity Commissioner, 2004 (3) SCC 137.
7. In light of the above, coming back to the facts of the
present case, as per own averments of the plaintiff, the
plaintiff came to know about the documents in favour of
the defendant no. 1 & 2 on 24.06.2017. it is also averred
that the plaintiff had previously filed the present suit on
27.04.2018 in the Ld. Court of ADJ however, plaint was
returned vide order dated 24.01.2023. That the plaintiff
received original plaint on 16.02.2023 and accordingly,
filed the present suit. As the plaintiff was prosecuting with
due diligence another civil proceeding and the plaint was
returned vide order dated 24.01.2023 on the ground of lack
of pecuniary jurisdiction, the plaintiff is entitled to
exclusion of the time period during which he was
prosecuting the said civil proceeding by virtue of section
14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Taking into account the
said exclusion of time period and the relief sought by the
plaintiff, it is observed that the present suit is within
-- 3 of 4 --
limitation and accordingly the contention of the defendant
does not find merit.
8. Apropos the foregoing discussion, application u/o VII Rule
11 CPC stands dismissed and disposed off.
Announced in the open Court today.
(Shaina Goyal)
Civil Judge-N/W District
Rohini Courts-01.03.2024
-- 4 of 4 --