The court emphasized that the scope of judicial inquiry under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is limited to examining the averments made in the plaint and that issues requiring analysis of evidence cannot be decided at that stage.

Headnote:
CPC - Revision petition - Order VII Rule 11 - [Sections 115, 420, 120-B, 34 of IPC, 1860; Section 156(3) of CrPC, 1973] - The court dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, holding that the grounds taken by the petitioner constitute triable issues and cannot be decided at the stage of the application. The court referred to legal provisions and interpretations from the CPC and relevant case laws to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint filed by the respondent for malicious prosecution. The trial court dismissed the application, leading to the revision petition.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the grounds taken by the petitioner constituted triable issues and could not be decided at the stage of the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
Issues: The issues revolved around the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC and the scope of judicial inquiry at that stage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provision under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC provides for rejection of a plaint based on limited grounds, and the court's inquiry is restricted to examining the averments made in the plaint. The court referred to relevant legal provisions and case laws to support its decision.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the decision of the trial court to reject the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)--The instant petition has been preferred under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC"), praying for the following reliefs:

"a) set aside the impugned order dated 17.05.2023 passed by the Court of Sh. Divyang Thakur, Ld. Additional District Judge, South West, Dwarka, Delhi wherein the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by the Petitioner/Defendant in the Civil Suit bearing CS DJ No. 816/2019 title as "Som Dutt Sharma Versus Parveen Kumar" was dismissed.

b) pass any such other or further order which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the interest of justice."

2. The relevant factual matrix briefly recapitulated for the disposal of the present petition is reproduced herein:

a) The respondent/plaintiff along with his wife and brother had allegedly taken Rs.3,00,000/- from the petitioner/defendant on the pretext of providing a government job.

b) Thereafter, the petitioner registered an FIR bearing No. 118/2010 at P.S Palam Village, under Sections 420, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the respondent, his wife and his brother, where under the investigating officer was unable to find substantial evidence against the respondent, her husband and her brother-in-law.

c) Subsequently, the respondent filed a civil suit bearing No. 816/2019, before the learned ADJ, Dwarka Court, New Delhi, for malicious prosecution against the petitioner seeking Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation.

d) Thereafter, the petitioner filed his written statement in the abovementioned suit, along with an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, for rejection of plaint.

e) In his application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the petitioner claimed that the respondent along with his wife and brother are habitual offenders. The petitioner further claimed that no sufficient cause of action accrues in favour of the respondent as the complaint filed under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is not a private complaint case and hence, the petitioner has no role to play.

f) Consequently, the learned Trial Court, dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, vide the impugned order dated 17th May, 2023 in Civil Suit bearing No. 816/2019. Hence, the present petition.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the impugned order under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court, since the impugned order dated 17th May, 2023 passed by the learned Trial Court is erroneous, illegal and unjustified.

4. It is submitted that the respondent along with his wife and brother have cheated many people in a manner similar to that of the petitioner and have several complaints registered against them. Learned counsel also submitted that the suit filed by the respondent against the petitioner is merely to tarnish the petitioner's image in society.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and perused the record.

6. As per the material on record, the learned Trial Court vide the impugned order dated 17th May, 2023 held that the grounds taken by the petitioner in his application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, requires the Court to peruse the averments made in the plaint and the documents annexed thereto, in order to assess the case of the petitioner.

7. The learned Trial Court while passing the impugned order further observed that the grounds taken by the petitioner are triable issues and the Court will have to adjudicate the same on merits and not in an application made under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. Relevant paragraphs of the impugned order dated 17th May, 2023 are reproduced below:

"Ld. Counsel for Defendant has relied heavily upon the order of acquittal in the favour of the Defendant to submit that the present suit is not maintainable. Submissions made in the application under Order VII R 11 of CPC requires this Court