Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J.
Hitender Shokeen – Appellant
Versus
Rajan Kumar Shokeen & Ors. – Respondents
C.R.P. 220 of 2022 & CM APPL. 56659 of 2022, 56661 of 2022
Decided On : 12-05-2023
Fraud - Partition Suit - Limitation - Rejection of Plaint - [FRAUD] - [Partition Suit] - [Order VII Rule 11 CPC] - The court discussed the scope and ambit of exercise of power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and the intent and objective of this provision. The court examined the plaint and the documents filed with the plaint to ascertain if the plaint discloses a cause of action and/or is not barred by law. The court highlighted that limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and should not be decided without evidence. The court also emphasized that a judgment, decree, or order obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non est in the eye of the law. The court concluded that the present suit does not fall in the category of cases where the plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and upheld the Trial Court's decision to continue the suit and proceed to completion of the trial.
Fact of the Case:
The suit involved a partition of properties among family members. The Plaintiff alleged that earlier consent decrees were obtained by fraud and sought a declaration that the decrees were null and void. The Defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint, arguing that the suit was barred by limitation and that the Plaintiff was bound by the admissions of his predecessor-in-interest. The Trial Court rejected the application, and the Defendant filed a revision petition challenging the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the suit did not fall in the category of cases where the plaint could be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The Court emphasized that limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and should not be decided without evidence. The Court also highlighted that a judgment, decree, or order obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non est in the eye of the law. The Court upheld the Trial Court's decision to continue the suit and proceed to completion of the trial.
Issues: The issues involved in the case included the validity of earlier consent decrees, the partition of shares in the property, and the application of limitation. The Court noted that these were triable issues that required evidence and could not be decided without a trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that a judgment, decree, or order obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non est in the eye of the law. The Court also highlighted that limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and should not be decided without evidence. The Court concluded that the present suit did not fall in the category of cases where the plaint could be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and upheld the Trial Court's decision to continue the suit and proceed to completion of the trial.
Final Decision: The Revision Petition was dismissed, upholding the Trial Court's decision to reject the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and continue the suit to completion of the trial.
Key Points: - The court held that limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and cannot be decided without evidence [11000767420015][11000767420016]. - The court affirmed that a judgment/decree obtained by fraud is a nullity and non est in the eye of the law, and may be challenged in various proceedings (including revision) (!) (!) (!) . - The Supreme Court guidance that Order VII Rule 11 CPC should consider only the plaint and documents filed with it, and not pleadings outside the plaint, though issues of fraud and limitation may require trial evidence [11000767420013][11000767420023]. - The Revision Petition upheld the Trial Court’s decision to continue the suit and not reject the plaint at this stage, recognizing the complexity and triable issues requiring evidence [11000767420027][11000767420029]. - The judgments cited establish that fraud in obtaining decrees can be investigated and affect the validity of decrees and subsequent claims (!) (!) (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT
Jyoti Singh, J.
1. By this revision petition, Petitioner assails the order dated 17.08.2022 passed by the learned Trial Court in Civ DJ 7729/2016 titled as Rajan Kumar Shokeen v. Om Parkash Shokeen & Ors., whereby application filed by the Petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint, has been dismissed. Petitioner is Defendant No.3(C) and Respondents No.2(a), 2(b), 3, 4 and 5 are also Defendants before the Trial Court while Respondent No.1 is the Plaintiff and parties are hereinafter referred to by their litigating status before the Trial Court.
2. Facts to the extent necessary and relevant for disposal of this revision petition are that late Sh. Rattan Singh, father of Om Parkash Shokeen, Bal Kishan Shokeen and Rajinder Singh Shokeen, is stated to be the owner of House No.173 (SR-114) in Abadi/ Lal Dora and agricultural land measuring 165 bighas approximately in Village Peera Garhi, Delhi. For ready reference, a family tree is reproduced here under:
[IMG]
3. In 1963, the entire agricultural land except 2 Bighas and 10 Biswas in Khasra No.487/1 was acquired by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and compensation was received. As per the Petitioner, on 19.06.1968, Om Parkash, Bal Kishan and Rajinder Singh purchased Property No.1, Sector-4 Market, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as `Property No.1') in the name of Smt. Manmohini Shokeen (now deceased), wife of Om Parkash and mother of Rajan Shokeen, Plaintiff in the suit. Property No.6, Sector-4 Market, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as `Property No.6') was purchased in the name of Smt. Kamla Rani, a stranger to the family, from compensation received from acquisition of the land and personal funds.
4. On 06.11.1971, Om Parkash, Bal Kishan and Rajinder Singh filed a suit against Smt. Kamla Rani, being Suit No.925/1971, for declaration of title alleging to be the real owners of Property No.6. On 03.01.1972, a consent decree was passed in the suit as Smt. Kamla Rani admitted the claim of the Plaintiffs therein, in her written statement as also in her statement on oath, that the plot in dispute was purchased by the Plaintiffs benami in her name and belonged to the Plaintiffs. On 02.03.1972, Om Parkash, Bal Kishan and Rajinder Singh filed a suit against Smt. Manmohini being Suit No.76/1972 for declaration of title in their names, alleging to be real owners of Property No.1. Consent decree was passed in this suit also on 07.04.1972 as Smt. Manmohini admitted in her written statement that the three Plaintiffs were owners of the suit property.
5. Subsequent thereto, in the year 2000, suit being CS(OS) No.2719/2000 was filed by Om Parkash against Bal Kishan and Rajinder Singh seeking partition of properties, bearing House No.173 (SR-114) situated in the Abadi/ Lal Dora of Village Peeragarhi, Delhi and Gher/plot bearing Khasra No.487/31 measuring 2 Bighas 10 Biswas, situated in Village Peeragarhi, Delhi, amongst the three brothers. In 2001, CS(OS) No.965/2001 was filed by Om Parkash seeking partition of Properties No.1 and 6, amongst the three brothers. Bal Kishan filed counter claim on 26.03.2013 in CS(OS) No.2719/2000, which was registered as CS(OS) 314/2008, wherein properties other than the aforementioned four properties were sought to be partitioned.
6. On 12.12.2005, this Court passed a preliminary decree in CS(OS) No.2719/2000 and CS(OS) No.965/2001 in respect of the four properties. Plaintiff filed I.A. No.12397/2006 in CS(OS) No.2719/2000 and I.A. No.12407/2006 in CS(OS) No.965/2001 on 06.11.2006 for impleadment, claiming joint ownership in the family properties. Vide order dated 15.03.2007, the applications were dismissed. The order was challenged by the Plaintiff before the Division Bench in FAO(OS) Nos. 94/2007 and 95/2007 and the appeals were dismissed vide order dated 26.03.2007. It was observed by the Division Bench that even if it was assumed that all properties were ancestral and t
A judgment, decree, or order obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non est in the eye of the law. Limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and should not be decided without ev....
Point of law: Rejection of plaint - Clever or ingenious drafting cannot mask the Court for consideration of am application seeking rejection of the plaint when the suit is barred by limitation on the....
Rejection of plaint – Suit for partition cannot be thrown out in an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC on the ground of limitation.
Allegations of fraud can affect limitation in civil suits and warrant careful consideration rather than outright dismissal of plaints.
The court ruled that a plaint cannot be rejected summarily under Order VII Rule 11 CPC without determining if it discloses a cause of action, especially when limitation is a mixed question of law and....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plea of res judicata requires consideration of the pleadings, issues, and decision in the previous suit, which is beyond the scope of Orde....
The judgment establishes the principle that the scope of revisional powers of the High Court under Section 115 of the CPC is limited to the irregular exercise or non-exercise of jurisdiction, and doe....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit for partition can be barred by law and limitation if there is already a decree and final decree in place, and the plaintiff fails to en....
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
