Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 3126
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.
Vishnu Khanna – Appellant
Versus
Avinash Kapoor & Ors. – Respondents
CS(OS) 690 of 2022
Decided On : 14-08-2023
Mr.Arjun Singh Bawa, Ms. Sambhavi M. and Mr.Siddharths, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr.Vaibhav Dang, Advocate, for D1 to 4.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the strict application of the conditions enumerated under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of a plaint, and the importance of considering only the averments in the plaint in determining the cause of action and the applicability of legal principles.
Headnote:
Order VII Rule 11 - Rejection of plaint under sub-rules (a) and (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII CPC - Anathula Sudhakar v P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs., Kayalulla Parambath Moidu Haji v. Namboodiyil Vinodan, Balram Singh v. Kelo Devi, Suraj Lamps and Industries Pvt. Ltd. Thr. Dir. v State of Haryana and Anr., Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat and Ors.
Fact of the Case:
Defendants sought rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII CPC. Plaintiff claimed ownership of suit property and filed a suit for permanent injunction and damages as the Interim Administrator of Late Dr. Pushpa Khanna's estate.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the grounds for rejection of the plaint, including lack of cause of action, maintainability of the suit, and principles of estoppel. The court considered the scope of power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and the test for preliminary objections. It found that the suit was not barred by limitation and rejected the defendants' contentions.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the plaintiff's claim to ownership, the applicability of the principles of estoppel, and the maintainability of the suit under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit was not barred by limitation, the principles of estoppel did not apply, and the plaintiff's claim was not affected by the decision in Suraj Lamps. The court emphasized that the power under Order VII Rule 11 should be exercised strictly and based only on the averments in the plaint.
Final Decision: The application for rejection of the plaint was dismissed with no order as to costs.
ORDER
I.A. 467/2023 (under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) by defendants)
1. Defendants seek rejection of plaint under sub-rules (a) and (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII CPC intra alia on the following grounds:
i) Plaint is cleverly drafted to create an illusion of a cause of action, although the same does not exist.
ii) Simpliciter suit for injunction, without seeking relief of declaration of title of suit property is not maintainable, especially in light of the several litigations wherein Late Dr. Pushpa Khanna's title was challenged by the defendants. In other words, title to suit property being in dispute, a simpliciter suit for injunction, without suing for declaration of title, is not maintainable. In this regard, reference is made to the decisions in Anathula Sudhakar v P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs. and Ors., (2008)4 SCC 594, Kayalulla Parambath Moidu Haji v. Namboodiyil Vinodan, MANU/SC/0606/2021 and Balram Singh v. Kelo Devi, MANU/SC/1241/2022.
iii) Suit is barred by the principles of estoppel as earlier Late Dr. Pushpa Khanna had filed a similar suit being C.S. No. 169/2020 for injunction inter alia on the basis of same documents, alleging that the defendants were impeding her ingress/egress from the suit property, and after the defendants challenged her title in their written statement, the suit was withdrawn.
iv) Plaintiff's claim that Late Dr. Pushpa Khanna became the owner of suit property by virtue of Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney and Deed of Apartment all dated 20.03.1989, is hit by the decision of Supreme Court in Suraj Lamps and Industries Pvt. Ltd. Thr. Dir. v State of Haryana and Anr.4, since all of the above documents were unregistered and insufficiently stamped.
2. Additionally, it was contended that, while the real owner of suit property was one Krishan Kumari Sharma, the three documents by virtue of which title is claimed by Late Dr. Pushpa Khanna were executed by one Satish Seth, a builder with whom the owner had entered into a collaboration agreement dated 05/09/1988, which was subsequently cancelled. No document has been placed on record by the plaintiff to show as to how the builder became the owner or had any authority to transfer the title of suit property to Late Dr. Pushpa Khanna.
3. Plaintiff has countered defendant's submissions by contending that the aforenoted documents were executed in favour of Late Dr. Pushpa Khanna in the year 1989, from which date she had remained in uninterrupted physical possession of the suit property, and during this period of 32 years, her title was never proactively challenged by the defendants. Thus, the challenge to her title now is hit by Article 58 of the Limitation Act.
4. Before proceeding further, it is expedient to outline the scope of power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The settled position of law is that the power under the said provision can be exercised by the Court at any stage of the suit, provided the conditions enumerated therein are fulfilled. While considering an application under the said provision, only the averments in the plaint are to be seen, and the averments in the written statement as well as contentions of the Defendant are wholly immaterial. If, on an entire and meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and meritless, in the sense that it does not disclose any right to sue, the court should exercise its power under the said provision. Since the power conferred on the Court to terminate civil action at the threshold is drastic, the conditions enumerated under Order VII Rule 11 have to be strictly adhered to. The averments of the plaint have to be read as a whole to find out whether they disclose a cause of action or whether the suit is barred by any law. Further, even when the allegations made out in the plaint are taken to be correct as a whole on their face value, if they show that the suit is barred by any law, or does not disclose any cause of action, the application for rejection of p
