Back
High Court Of Delhi
AJAY GOEL - Appellant
Versus
K.K.BHANDARI - Respondent
Decided On : 10/14/1998
Held:
The expressions used in Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is clear and explicit. A plaint could be rejected by the court if any of the conditions of the four clauses mentioned therein is found to be attracted. If a suit does not have any cause of action the same could be rejected even at the very threshold i.e. even before admitting the suit or at any time thereafter. The courts power is not restricted, as submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, that such a plaint which does not disclose even a cause of action could not be dismissed without issuing summons on the same. Thus in my considered opinion this court has power and jurisdiction to frame five issues even without ordering for issuance of summons. The court should always be conscious of the fact that a bogus and groundless litigation is not brought to the court and if a proceeding is inspired by oblique motive and/or a suit appears to the court to be vexatious the same should be rejected at the earliest stage.
Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 31 — Cancellation of documents — Sale of property — Cancellation of lease of property by DDA — Challenge to subsequent sale of property to third person — Suit is not maintainable.
It is crystalclear that with the sale of the property in question by the plaintiff to the defendant No. 1 and cancellation of the lease of the plaintiff by the Lesser Lt. Governor of Delhi on 6.10.1978 and the DDA granting permission for safe of the suit property in favor of defendant No. 1 on 9.12.1996 after payment of the entire dues as demanded by the DDA, no right, title and interest of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property as of today exists. In the present suit the plaintiff has not challenged the cancellation of lease made in 1978 and has also not challenged the action of DDA in demanding payment from the defendant No. 1 and has also not challenged the sale permission dated 9.12.1996. The plaintiff has also not challenged the communication dated 16.1.1997 of DDA to defendant No. 1. Thus in the absence of any challenge as aforesaid and extinguishment of the right, title and interest of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property the plaintiff cannot seek relief under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act for cancellation of the sale deed by which the title of defendant No. 1 was made perfect on the ground that the same is void against the plaintiff. Admittedly the defendant, apart from paying Rs. 3,96,000/- to the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs. 35,96,787/- to the DDA. With the sale of the property in question by the plaintiff to the defendant No. 1 and cancellation of the lease by DDA and sale permission in favor of the defendant No. 1, there could not be allegation made by the defendant No. 1 that the sale deed dated 10.1.1997 and the power of attorney are void and thus there is no cause of action for the plaintiff under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the suit as framed by the plaintiff is held to be not maintainable.
( 1 ) THE present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff against the defendants under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act seeking for a decree for mandatory injunction as also for perpetual injunction. The plaintiff in the present suit has prayed for a decree that the documents namely original sale deed dated 10. 1. 1997 executed by Mrs. Malti Bhandari in favour of defendant No. 1 and registered with the Sub-Registrar, Defendant No. 4, the power of attorney dated 16. 12. 1996 registered on 18. 12. 1996 with defendant No. 5 and the documents of transfer of property in favour of defendant No. 1 by defendants No. 3 and 8 be directed to be filed in court and the same be declared as void and cancelled and thereafter delivered upto the plaintiff.
( 2 ) THE plaintiff earlier filed a suit being Suit No. 2946/1996 for possession and permanent injunction and the same is pending in this court. It is stated that during the pendency of the earlier suit filed by the plaintiff for possession and in utter disregard of the rule of lis pendence as is enshrined under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act the defendants have fraudulently brought into existence aforesaid documents which were required to be declared as void. This court, however, by order dated 4. 5. 1998 ordered that before the suit is taken up for admission the plaintiff is to satisfy on the following points:- 1. Whether the suit as framed is maintainable? 2. Whether the suit for declaration simplicitor without claiming relief of possession is maintainable? 3. Whether the suit is properly valued for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? 4. Whether the defendants 3 to 7 are necessary or proper parties? 5. Whether the suit against defendant No. 5 is maintainable at Delhi?
( 3 ) THE plaintiff was directed to advance his arguments on the aforesaid preliminary points. The court also called for the records of Suit No. 2496/1996 as also the records of the Civil Writ Petition No. 4488/1995 which have been made available with the record of the present suit.
( 4 ) THE defendant No. 1 has also entered appearance and therefore, I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff as also for defendant No. 1 on the aforesaid issues framed by this court on 4. 5. 1998.
( 5 ) MR. Kohli appearing for the plaintiff submitted that the court cannot exercise powers under Order 7 Rule 10 and/or Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure before issuing of summons to the defendants. According to the counsel the said power could be exercised under the aforesaid provisions only after issuance of summons to the defendants. The learned counsel also argued at length on the aforesaid issues raised by this court. Counsel for the plaintiff further submitted that even if it is assumed that the provisions of Order 7 Rule 10 and/or 11 Civil Procedure Code apply to the present proceedings, at this stage the plaintiff cannot be non-suited nor can the plaint be rejected on the ground that the suit as framed is not maintainable nor the plaint could be rejected and the suit dismissed even if it is found that the suit is not maintainable without claiming relief of possession or that the suit is not properly valued, or that the defendants No. 3 to 7 are not necessary and proper parties.
( 6 ) MR. Nigam appearing for defendant No. 1 however, submitted that the issues that have been framed by this court are very relevant and if this court at this juncture finds that the suit is vexatious the same could be dismissed at the very threshold. According to him if it is found that the suit is inspired by vexatious motive and is altogether ground less and a bogus litigation the court is required to dismiss the suit at the earliest stage so as to protect the defendants from contesting a vexatious litigation. He further submitted that the court can exercise powers under Order 7 Rule 10 and/or 11 Civil Procedure Code and also can dismiss a suit at any stage and that the court can examine a plaint be
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
