Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 3826

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
Rajeev – Appellant
Versus
Hariom Kumar – Respondent
C.R.P. 148 of 2022
Decided On : 07-08-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh and Mr. Asif Ali, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Kamlesh Kumar, Advocate, for the Respondent.

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 does not extend to correcting errors of fact or law unless they relate to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the dispute itself.

Headnote:
CPC - Civil Procedure - 115 - The judgment discusses the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC and the scope of revisional powers of the High Court under Section 115 of the CPC.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a revision petition against the order of the Trial Court dismissing their application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint in a civil suit for partition of property.
Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the Trial Court did not err in dismissing the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, as the issues raised by the petitioner related to the merits of the suit and should be adjudicated upon during the trial.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's challenge against the impugned order of the Trial Court was sustainable under the limited scope of Section 115 of the CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Trial Court's decision to dismiss the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC was not erroneous and did not warrant intervention under Section 115 of the CPC, as the issues raised related to the merits of the suit and should be decided during the trial.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and the Court found no infirmity in the impugned order.

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 following reliefs:

"i. Allow the present petition

ii. Set aside the impugned judgment/order dated 05.07.2022 passed by the Ld. Trial Court Ms' Shivali Bansal, ADJ, on application filed under order VII Rule 11 CPC in Civil Suit No-958/2017 titled as Hariom Kumar V/s. Laxmi Devi & Ors. and reject the plaint of respondent filed before Ld. trial court.

iii. Call the trial court record;

iv. The cost of the petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner and against the Respondent.

v. And to award other relief or reliefs in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondent which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, in the interest of Justice."

2. It is submitted that the petitioner in the present suit is one of the defendant in the civil suit bearing no. 958/2017 filed by the respondent/plaintiff. It is further submitted that the respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit for the partition of property measuring 183 sq. yards out of Khasra no.19/21 and 19/22 bearing no. A-3, 25 Feet Road, Amrit Vihar, Burari, Delhi-110084 which is in the name of Late Smt. Laxmi Devi. The said property was purchased by the father of the petitioner in the name of mother of the petitioner after selling his ancestral property.

3. It is further submitted that the respondent is in continuous possession of the said property. Late Sh. Laxmi Devi (deceased) has already partitioned the said property during her lifetime amongst her legal heirs. Hence, the abovementioned suit for partition filed by the respondent before the Trial Court is not maintainable.

4. It is submitted that on the aforesaid grounds, the petitioner filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of plaint since there is no cause of action, which was dismissed by the Trial Court vide order dated 5th July 2022.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/defendant submitted that the petitioner has preferred the present civil revision petition against the impugned order dated 5th July 2022 passed by learned A.D.J (North) Rohini Courts, Delhi.

6. It is submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the Trial Court without applying his judicial mind and has committed grave error of facts and law, hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

7. In view of the foregoing paragraphs, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the instant petition may be allowed and the reliefs sought may be granted.

8. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff vehemently opposed the averments made by the petitioner and submitted that the present petition has been filed with the sole purpose of harassing the respondent. The present petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of law.

9. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court has not caused any miscarriage of justice by passing the impugned order. It is further submitted that if the respondent is not allowed to prove his case on merits, the same will cause grave injustice and irreparable harm to the respondent.

10. It is submitted that the Trial Court has considered the facts stated by the plaintiff/respondent in the plaint in passing the impugned order dated 5th July 2022.

11. It is submitted that the case filed by the plaintiff/respondent has a cause of action that the property of Late Smt. Laxmi Devi has been not partitioned amongst her legal heirs and the said property is a joint family property. It is further submitted that it is well-settled law that the property which has been purchased in the name of the wife by the husband cannot be considered a benami transaction and the husband has right over such property if it is purchased from a known source of money.

12. It is submitted that in the present factual scenario, the suit property was purchased