Order 12

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 1
34 CS SCJ 708/24
Jagdish Singh Vs. Anupama Gupta
24.07.2026
Present: Plaintiff in person.
Ld. Counsel for plaintiff through VC.
Ld. Counsel for defendant through VC.
ORDER
1. Vide this order I shall disposed off an application under order 7
rule 11 CPC filed by the defendant.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the plaintiff as per the plaint is that the
plaintiff is owner of the property at plot no. 28, pocket no. 4 and 5,
Sector 23, Rohini, Delhi which was purchased by him from Ms.
Shakuntala Devi through irrevokable GPA, Agreement to sell,
possessino letter, deed of Will dated 22.02.2013. It is stated that the
plaintiff is in possession of the suit property, however, it has been
alleged that the defendants are interfering in the possession of the
plaintiff and are trying to dispossess the plaintiff rom the suit property
hence, the present suit has been filed seeking injunction thereby
restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit
property and from interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiff qua
the suit property without following due process of law.
3. The present application has been filed by the defendant stating that
the defendant is the owner of the suit property through registered sale
deed dated 10.05.2011. It is stated that the documents being allotted
upon by the plaintiff do not confer any right, title or interest upon the
plaintiff, hence, the suit is liable to rejected. Further it has been stated
-- 1 of 4 --
2
that the plaintiff is deliberately suppressed certain facts and has not
valued the suit properly as he is seeking possession hence it is prayed
that the plaint be rejected.
4. Per contra, it has been argued by the plaintiff that the suit has been
valued properly as the prayer being sought is of permanent injunction
and not possession. Further it is argued that the documents of defendant
cannot be relied at this stage. Hence, it is prayed that the application be
dismissed.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. The grounds for rejecting a plaint U/O VII Rule 11 CPC 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 CPC.
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 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
-- 2 of 4 --
3
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. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai
Kalyanji Bhanusali (D) thr. L.Rs. and Ors. (2020) 7 SCC 366 has
reiterated the test for exercising the power under Order 7 Rule 11which
is that if the averments made in the plaint are taken in entirety, in
conjunction with the documents relied upon, would the same result in a
decree being passed. This test was laid down in Liverpool & London
S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I [Liverpool & London S.P. & I
Assn. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I, (2004) 9 SCC 512]
8. Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC deals with a situation where the plaint
does not disclose a cause of action. What is a cause of action has been
defined in Swamy Atmananda Vs. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam (2005)
10 SCC 51 and has been reiterated in Church of Christ Charitable Trust
and Educational Charitable Society v. Ponniamman Educational Trust
(2012) 8 SCC 706, as being a bundle of facts that are material and
relevant for the decision of the case and which are required to be proved
by the plaintiff to be entitled for reliefs claimed in the suit. In T.
Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467, also reiterated in
Dahiben (supra), trial courts were advised to not allow clever drafting to
raise an illusion of a cause of action.
9. The plaintiff claims himself to be the owner in possession of the
suit property and documents of defendant cannot be relied upon at this
-- 3 of 4 --
4
stage. Also, the relief being sought is of permanent injunction. Hence, no
ground u/o 7 rule 11 CPC is made out.
10. Accordingly, none of the requirements of order 7 rule 11 CPC are
being satisfied. Hence the present application is dismissed and disposed
off.
Be put up for consideration and furthre proceedings on
27.10.2026.
(Vaibhav Kumar)
Civil Judge/N-W District
24.07.2026
-- 4 of 4 --