Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Amit Bansal, J.
Harjit Kaur - Appellant
Versus
Shankar Mukherjee - Respondent
Civil Suit (OS) No. 2122 of 2015, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2002 of 2019
Decided On : 22-02-2022
CPC - Rejection of Counter Claim - Order VII Rule 11 - 1908 (CPC) - [Declaration, Possession, Injunction] - [Order VII Rule 11(a), Order VII Rule 11(b), Order VII Rule 11(d)] - The court discussed the reliefs sought by the defendant in the counter claim, the submissions of both parties, and the application of the Supreme Court judgment in Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (2020) 7 SCC 366. The court analyzed the issue of limitation and the cause of action for the counter claim, ultimately rejecting the counter claim under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC as being beyond the period of limitation and manifestly vexatious.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration as the absolute owner of a property, to which the defendant filed a counter claim seeking declaration, possession, and injunction. The plaintiff argued that the counter claim should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC due to lack of cause of action, failure to pay court fees, and being barred by limitation. The defendant contended that the counter claim was filed pursuant to the directions of the L&DO and offered to pay court fees as directed by the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the counter claim was beyond the period of limitation and lacked a right to sue, ultimately rejecting it under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC. The court did not delve into the issue of deficient court fees as the counter claim was already rejected on other grounds.
Issues: The issues revolved around the rejection of the counter claim under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, specifically addressing the cause of action, court fees, and limitation for the counter claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles laid down in the Supreme Court judgment in Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (2020) 7 SCC 366, emphasizing that the counter claim must not be manifestly vexatious and must disclose a real cause of action. The court scrutinized the averments made in the counter claim and the documents relied upon to determine its validity.
Final Decision: The court allowed the plaintiff's application and rejected the counter claim of the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
JUDGMENT
amit Bansal, J. - I.a. No. 7603/2017 (u/O.VII R.11 CPC for rejection of counter claim) & CC No.79/2016
1. By this order, I shall dispose of the application filed on behalf of the applicant/plaintiff under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking rejection of the counter claim filed on behalf of the defendant.
2. The suit in question was filed on behalf of the plaintiff seeking relief of declaration, that the plaintiff be declared the absolute owner of B-399 Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi (suit property).
3. In the said suit, the defendant filed a counter claim on 21st March, 2016 and prayed for the following reliefs:
'(a) allow the counter claim by passing a decree of declaration, by declaring the documents being GPa dated 09.08.1977, agreement to Sell, registered SPa, Will, Receipt, etc., dated 12.07.1985 in respect of Property No. B-399 Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi, admeasuring 160 Sq. Yards, being forged and fabricated thus null, void and of no effect;
(b) Pass a decree of mandatory injunction by issuing directions to the Plaintiff to handover the Property No. B-399 Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi, admeasuring 160 Sq. Yards, to the Defendant, upon termination of user license;
(c) Pass a decree of permanent injunction commanding/directing the Plaintiff, her servants, assignees, representatives, legal heirs and agents not to sell, transfer, alienate, mortgage, part with possession, lease, create any third party interest and/or encumber or deal with in any manner whatsoever with the property bearing No. B-399 Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi, admeasuring 160 Sq. Yards;
(d) Grant costs of the counter claim in favour of the Defendant and against the Plaintiff'
4. In the suit filed on behalf of the plaintiff, it is pleaded that:
(i) a registered General Power of attorney (GPa) dated 9th august, 1977 was executed by Shri S.C. Mukherjee, being the father of the defendant, in favour of the plaintiff for the purposes of constructing a building at the suit property.
(ii) On the basis of the said GPa, the plaintiff constructed a single storied house at the said property.
(iii) On 12th July, 1985, the father of the defendant executed a registered Will together with a registered irrevocable GPa, a Special Power of attorney (SPa) and agreement to Sell Deed in favour of the plaintiff.
(iv) The entire sale consideration of Rs.1,24,800/- was paid by the plaintiff to the father of the defendant by way of bank drafts. Since then, i.e., 1985, the plaintiff has been in occupation of the suit property.
(v) In September, 2012, the defendant filed a suit bearing CS(OS) No.2764/2012 before this Court seeking possession of the suit property. The plaint was rejected by this Court vide order dated 18th December, 2012 on the ground of non-payment of court fees as well as non-appearance of the defendant upon being asked to be personally present before this Court.
(vi) The said order was not challenged by the defendant.
(vii) Pursuant to the order dated 14th July, 2014 passed by this Court in LPa No.34/2013, directing the Land and Development Office (L&DO) to decide the representation dated 20th May, 2013 of the defendant herein, the L&DO passed an order dated 28th October, 2014 concluding that there is a dispute over the title of the suit property and advised the parties to approach the civil court.
5. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of the L&DO, the present suit was filed on behalf of the plaintiff and the suit was contested on behalf of the defendant by filing a written statement. In addition, the aforesaid counter claim was filed on behalf of the defendant on 19th March, 2016.
6. Notice in the present application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC was issued on 12th July, 2017. The reply to the said application and rejoinder thereto are both on record.
7. Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff submits that the present suit is liable to be rejected in terms of (i) Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC as there is no cause of action in
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a counter claim must not be manifestly vexatious, must disclose a real cause of action, and must be within the prescribed period of limitation....
An application for rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC must be decided solely based on the averments in the plaint. The court cannot consider the defendant's evidence or written statement....
A plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 for non-disclosure of cause of action and being barred by limitation if claims are based on prior known events.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right to sue first accrues when the fact first comes to the knowledge of the plaintiff, and if a suit is filed beyond the limitation perio....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC if it is clearly barred by limitation, and if the plaintiff was well aware of the facts gi....
(1) Rejection of plaint – When a document referred to in plaint, forms basis of plaint, it should be treated as a part of plaint – Court cannot look into written statement or documents filed by defen....
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
