IMPORTANT POINT
The importance of looking into the averments in the plaint for adjudicating upon the application under Order VII Rule 11 and the supervisory power conferred by Section 115 of the CPC.

ORDER

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

"A. Set aside the Impugned Order dated 05.08.2023 passed in Civil suit CS DJ No. 649 of 2022, titled as `Anju Vohra and Ors. V/s. Pankaj Vohra and Ors.', filed by the Respondents 1, 2 and 3, before Ms. Purva Sareen Additional District Judge-03 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi.

B. Pass orders with regard to the Application Under Order XXXIX Rule 4, read with Section 4 of the CPC, which has been dealt with by the Ld. ADJ, in the order dated 05.08.2023.

C. Call for the record of the Suit bearing no. Civil suit CS DJ No. 649 of 2022, titled as `Anju Vohra and Ors. V/s. Pankaj Vohra and Ors.'.

D. Dismiss/Reject the Civil suit CS DJ No. 649 of 2022, titled as `Anju Vohra and Ors. V/s. Pankaj Vohra and Ors.'. As not maintainable, with exemplary costs against the Respondents for causing undue and uncalled for harassment to the Petitioners and for misusing the process of this Hon'ble court.

E. Award litigation costs and exceptional damages in favour of the Petitioners and against the Respondents as a deterrent from initiating bogus litigation/s;

F. Grant any other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of this case."

2. The brief facts of the matter have been recapitulated herein:

a) The petitioner no. 1 is the brother-in-law and the petitioner no. 2 is the wife of Late Mr. R. S. Vohra. The respondent no. 2 is the mother-in law of respondent no. 1. The respondent no. 2 and 3 are the son and daughter of respondent no.1.

b) The respondents had filed a Civil Suit bearing no. CS DJ 649/2022, before the learned Court below filed for declaration, possession, mesne profit and injunction against the petitioner/defendants qua the cancellation of relinquishment deed dated 18th October 2021 and gift deed dated 17th March 2022.

c) In the above said Civil Suit,the petitioner had moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, for rejection of the plaint on the ground of lack of cause of action. The said application was dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 5th August 2023.

d) Being aggrieved by the said dismissal, the petitioner has filed the present petition against seeking revision of the impugned order dated 5th August 2023.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that while passing the impugned order, the learned Trial Court, did not consider the fact that the Suit filed by the respondents lack cause of action and the respondents have failed to establish the same.

4. It is contended that the respondents have not placed the relevant facts on record to establish it's 'cause of action' in the said Suit, hence, the plaint failed to establish any such legal right accrued in favour of the respondents.

5. It is submitted that the respondents have wrongfully made an allegation against the respondent no.3 i.e., the Registrar for ignorance of the duly executed Relinquishment Deed, since the registration of any document is a process which takes some time before the actual execution of the same.

6. It is submitted that by alleging violence and harassment against the petitioners in the plaint, the respondents have wrongfully attempted to create an impression of the petitioners which is prima facie malafide, consequently leading petitioner no.1 to escape from the country after liquidating their business and properties.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the whilst passing the impugned order, the learned Trial Court made an error in exercising its jurisdiction and the same suffers from material irregularities since the same was passed consider the oral and written submissions made before it therefore, making it violative of principles of natural justice, equity, and law.

8. It is submitted that the learned Court below reached on the wrong conclusion that there is