The grounds for rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC cannot be examined at the stage of defendant's evidence and go into the merits of the suit, which should be decided during the trial.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)--The instant petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter "CPC), has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

"i. Pass an order to set-aside the impugned order dated 20/09/2022 passed by Shri Rajesh Kumar, ADJ-03, East, Karkardooma Court, Delhi in view of the application of petitioners/defendants to reject the plaint filed under order VII rule 11 (d) read with section 151 of CPC in civil suit bearing No. CS/2674/2016 titled as Sudha Prasad V/s Monika Singh & Anr..

ii. Pass an order to allow the application of the petitioners/defendants filed under order VII rule 11 (d) read with section 151 of CPC to reject the plaint of the respondent/plaintiff.

iii. Any other relief which this Hon`ble Court deems fit and proper may also be granted in favour of the petitioners/defendants and against the respondent/plaintiff in the interest of justice."

2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners/defendants submitted that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession and damages bearing suit no. 2674/2016 under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter "the Act") on 18th June 2008 before the ADJ-03, East Karkardooma Court, Delhi, pertaining to the plot/property admeasuring 1200 sq. yards forming part of khasra no. 389/26311/2 situated in village Chilla Saronda Banger, Delhi bearing no. B-1179 (new), old no. B-335, New Ashok Nagar, Delhi-110096 (hereinafter "Suit Property").

3. It is submitted that in the said suit, the petitioners filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the respondent is seeking the reliefs which are barred by law. The said application was dismissed by the Court below and hence, the petitioners are before this Court.

4. It is submitted that there is an error of law in passing the impugned order dated 20th September 2022, by the learned Trial Court as it has failed to appreciate that under the provisions of the law, two alternate and different remedies i.e. `relief for decree of possession and damages under Section 6 of the Act' or in the alternative `relief for decree of possession and damages based on title' cannot be clubbed or combined in one and the same suit.

5. It is submitted that the present revision petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 20th September 2022 passed in the civil suit whereby application of the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the CPC has been dismissed.

6. It is submitted that on one hand the respondent is seeking a relief for recovery of possession of a property under Section 6 of the Act, wherein, the reliefs sought are limited to the question that whether the plaintiff who was formerly in possession was dispossessed subsequently without his consent. Whereas, on the other hand, a similar relief is being sought on the basis of title of the Suit Property as well. The same is in complete contravention of the ingredients of Section 6 of the Act. Hence, it is submitted that in such a Suit, the Court cannot try the question of title and similarly, a claim for damages also cannot be clubbed or combined with a relief under Section 6 of the Act.

7. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court wrongly adjudicated upon the application filed by the petitioners because it has failed to consider that while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the material which has to be considered are the averments or statement mentioned in the plaint along with the documents annexed with the plaint, if required, while issues, evidence etc. of the Suit are not relevant. Further, the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC can be considered at any stage of the Suit.

8. It is also submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to read the plaint as whole and passed the impugned order wrongly by not considering that as per the settled law, the reliefs under Section 6 of the Act cannot be