Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 16 CS SCJ 1038/25 ASHOK VIHAR TRADERS ASSOCIATION (REGD) Vs.
VARUN SHARMA M/S DEEP SONS
01.12.2025
Present: Plaintiff in person.
Sh. Vishal, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
Sh. Bhuvan, Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 2.
Sh. Harsh Vardhan, Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 3.
Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 1, 5 (through VC).
Perusal of record reveals that the date of hearing mentioned in the
previous ordersheet is 01.12.2026. However, the same was fixed for today i.e,
01.12.2025.
It appears that inadvertently, the date of hearing was mentioned as
01.12.2026. The same stands corrected and be read as 01.12.2025.
Perusal of record reveals that defendant no. 4 i.e, Bank Manager of
Bank of Baroda was duly served on 17.09.2025. However, none has appeared on
his behalf. Accordingly, defendant no. 4 is proceeded Ex-parte.
Vide this order, I shall decide the application under order 7 rule 11
filed by the defendant no. 3.
It has been argued by the defendant that the plaintiff has pressed his
claim on by-laws which are wholly fabricated, forged and non-existent as the same
bears no date of adoption or registration. It is also argued that the said by-laws do
not bear any signature of the office bearers or any member and it also lacks any
seal or stamp of the association or the Registrar of Societies. Also, it has been
argued that the same do not contain any reference to any resolution passed in any
-- 1 of 3 --
general body meeting, agenda, notice, quorum or voting record. Hence, it is prayed
that the plaint should be rejected. Ld. Counsel for defendant has placed his reliance
on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
Sheila Sebastian v. R.
Jawaharaj, (2018) 7 SCC 64 and T. Arivandandam v. TV Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC
467.
Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has argued that the by-laws placed on record
by the plaintiff are correct and merely word “central market” was added in the said
by-laws in the name of the plaintiff to avoid any confusion as another association
with the similar name was operating in a different area. Further, he has argued that
the application of the defendant holds no merit at this stage and shall be dismissed.
Heard. Record perused.
Order 7 rule 11 provides the following grounds for rejection of plaint.
(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;
(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned 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 9.
Apparently, order 7 rule 11 CPC categorically mentions the
circumstances under which the plaint can be rejected. Admittedly, none of the
contentions of the defendant meet out the criteria as mentioned in order 7 rule 11.
-- 2 of 3 --
The defendant has challenged the by-laws placed on record by the plaintiff which
shall be a matter of trial. Also, to adjudicate the contentions of the defendant,
documents of the defendants have to be seen, which can not be relied upon at this
stage. Accordingly, order 7 rule 11 CPC is dismissed.
Considering the exigency claimed by the plaintiff, part submissions on
application under order 39 rule 1 and 2 CPC heard.
Be put up for further arguments on 05.12.2025.
(Vaibhav Kumar)
Civil Judge-N/W District
Rohini Courts-01.12.2025
-- 3 of 3 --