The rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC should not be done cursorily without satisfying the requirements of the provisions, and the Court cannot consider the defense raised by the Defendant at this stage.

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. (Oral)

C.M. Appl. 5663/2023 (Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

C.R.P. 34/2023 & C.M. APPL. 5662/2023 (stay)

3. Present revision petition assails an order passed by the Trial Court on 13.09.2022, dismissing an application filed by Defendant No. 1 therein under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. It needs to be noted that when the suit was filed Smt. Usha Rani was impleaded as Defendant No. 1, however, during the pendency of the suit she has expired and the present petition has been filed through her legal heir Ms. Vandana Oberoi. Petitioner is hereinafter referred to as Defendant No. 1 and Respondent is referred to as the Plaintiff, in accordance with their litigating status before the Trial Court.

4. Facts to the extent necessary for adjudication of the present petition are that Plaintiff is the daughter of late Shri Manish Arora who was the son of Defendant No. 1 and expired in a road accident on 14.07.2008. Defendant No. 1 is the grandmother of the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 2 is the paternal aunt. It is the case of the Plaintiff that property bearing no. 49, Old Gupta Colony, Vijay Nagar, Delhi was purchased by late Shri Bhagwan Das, great grandfather of the Plaintiff and is a built up property having ground, first and second floor, area measuring 100 sq. yds. The ground and second floor of the suit property is in possession of Defendant No. 1 while first floor is in possession of the Plaintiff. As per the Plaintiff, she being one of the legal heirs of late Shri Bhagwan Das has a legal right over the suit property which is an ancestral property. Upon learning that Defendants No. 1 and 2 were trying to create third party rights by selling the suit property, Plaintiff filed the suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the Defendants to maintain status quo and not create third party rights/interest in the suit property and not to dispossess the Plaintiff forcefully.

5. Upon being served, Defendant No. 1 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint. It is the case of Defendant No. 1 that Plaintiff has been unable to establish any right or title in the suit property entitling her to file the suit and therefore, plaint deserves to be rejected for want of cause of action. It is further stated that Plaintiff has deliberately concealed vital facts that the suit property was originally a self-acquired property of late Shri Bhagwan Das who expired on 02.07.1974 leaving behind his heirs. The eldest son, namely Shri Pran Nath, also expired on 14.06.1978 leaving behind his heirs i.e. widow Smt. Usha Rani/Defendant No. 1 and son Shri Manish as well as one daughter/Defendant No. 2. Plaintiff is the daughter born out of wedlock of Shri Manish and one Smt. Simran @ Gurmit Kaur. The legal representatives of late Shri Bhagwan Das including father of the Plaintiff relinquished and released their respective claims and interests in the suit property in favour of widow of late Shri Bhagwan Das by a Relinquishment Deed dated 27.10.1994, much prior to the birth of the Plaintiff. By virtue of this Deed, Smt. Shant Piary became the sole and absolute owner of the suit property, who in turn sold half the property earlier and also executed a Will dated 20.05.1995, in favour of her daughter-in-law i.e. Defendant No. 1. Smt. Piary also expired on 27.06.2012 and the suit property devolved on Defendant No. 1 by virtue of the said Will.

6. Therefore, the case set up by Defendant No. 1 is that only permissive possession was given to the Plaintiff and further that Plaintiff and her mother moved out of the suit property after the death of Plaintiff's father and the mother has remarried. According to Defendant No. 1, therefore, no rights in the suit property vests in the plaintiff and plaint deserves to be rejected Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

7. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and it is this o