The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court should strictly adhere to the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and should not consider the defense of the defendants or look into the documents filed by them while deciding the application.

V.K. SHALI, J.

1. This is a Regular Second Appeal filed by the appellant against the order dated 13.03.2012 passed by Mr. J.P.S. Malik, ADJ, South District, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi, in RCA No. 15/2010 titled as Mrs. Mridula and Anr. Vs. M.C.D. and Anr.

2. The only substantial question of law, which arises for consideration is as to whether the learned Civil Judge could have passed the order dated 13.04.2009 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, dismissing the suit of the appellant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, which order has been upheld by the learned ADJ by the impugned order and, thus, both the orders suffer from perversity.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that one Mridula Bansal, appellant No.1 and her husband Vidhya Bhushan Bansal, appellant No.2 filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the MCD, seeking a direction that it must demolish the alleged unauthorized construction purported to have been raised in Property No.M-12, Green Park, New Delhi. In this Smt. Nalini Tripathi was also made as a party. No relief was sought against Smt. Nalini Tripathi and Dr. Harish Chand Bansal.

4. The suit property belong to one P.L. Bansal, who had bequeathed the property to his wife Dropadi Devi. Dropadi Devi, his widow, had four sons namely; V.K. Bansal, Rajender Kumar Bansal, Vidhya Bhushan Bansal and Dr.Harish Chand Bansal. During her life time Dropadi Devi had purportedly made a gift of the entire ground floor and the rear portion on the terrace floor i.e. the third floor in favour of Kusum Bansal wife of the one of the sons V.K. Bansal and her grand son Vikram Bansal, who happened to be the son of Kusum Bansal and V.K. Bansal. Dropadi Devi thereafter had died on 27.04.2004. she had alleged to have made a Will with regard to the other portions of the property in favour of Rajender Kumar Bansal, Vidhya Bhushan Bansal and Dr. Harish Chand Bansal. Vidhya Bhushan Bansal and his wife Mridula Bansal one of the appellants herein and the plaintiffs before the trial court are purported to have purchased the rights of Kusum Bansal and Vikram Bansal in respect of ground floor and the rear portion of terrace floor. It is after the purchase of the aforesaid portion of the property by them, that they filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the MCD making one of their brothers, Dr. Harish Chand Bansal as a party, who was alleged to have made unauthorized construction. Nalini Tripathi to whom a portion of the property was purported to have been sold by appellant was also made a party. The fact of sale to Nalini Tripathi has not been mentioned by them in the plaint.

5. Nalini Tripathi filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint, which was allowed by the learned Civil Judge vide order dated 13.04.2009. In the application filed by Nalini Tripathi, it was alleged by her that Vidhya Bhushan Bansal and Mridula Bansal have sold their right, title or interest in the property in favour of Nalini Tripathi and thus, they were left with no right, title or interest and were not competent to maintain the suit. It was also stated that the cause of action is stated to have arisen on 5.11.2005, when the notice for removal of unauthorised construction was given and yet suit was filed belatedly. After inviting for the reply, the learned trial court was convinced with both these pleas of Nalini Tripathi and dismissed the suit by holding that the appellant did not have any locus standi to file the suit after having sold their interest to Nalini Tripathi. The construction having been raised by respondent No.2 Dr. Harish Chand Bansal much prior to the date of giving notice dated 5.11.2005, the suit was filed belatedly and in any case the unauthorised construction having been known to the appellant earlier to the filing of the suit, the suit was barred by limitation as appellant had acquiescenced. The learned trial court has also referred to few judgments of the apex court in T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal (1997) 4