Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 5820

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
M. Vijay Kumaran - Appellant
Versus
Ajeet Prasad Aggarwal & Ors. - Respondents
C.R.P. 255 of 2023, CM APPL No. 47748 of 2023 & 47749 of 2023
Decided On : 15-09-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. B.P. Shukla, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Standing Counsel with Mr. Kuljeet Singh, Advocate, for the DDA.
Mr. Puneet Yadav, Advocate, for the Respondent-2.

IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that at the stage of considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the trial Court need not conduct a roving inquiry into the facts and merits of the case, but has to limit itself to the consideration laid down under the provision itself.

Headnote:
CPC - Civil Procedure - 115, 151 - 115, 151 - 1908
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition seeking to set aside an order dismissing their application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, claiming that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action. The respondent had filed a suit for injunction against the petitioner, alleging illegal construction on the petitioner's property affecting their right of peaceful enjoyment.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the plaint disclosed a cause of action for instituting the suit, as the alleged illegal construction by the petitioner was causing hindrance to the respondent's enjoyment of their property. The Court found no infirmity in the impugned order and dismissed the petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action for the suit, and whether the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC should be rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that at the stage of considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the trial Court need not conduct a roving inquiry into the facts and merits of the case, but has to limit itself to the consideration laid down under the provision itself. The Court also highlighted the settled position of law that in order to reject a plaint for the suit under any of the clauses mentioned in Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court needs to be guided by the reading of the averments in the plaint and not the defense taken.
Final Decision: The Court found no infirmity in the impugned order and dismissed the petition, upholding the impugned order dated 1st July 2023 passed by the Trial Court.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral) - The present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 115 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter "CPC"), seeking the following reliefs:

"A. Pass appropriate order thereby call for the record of Suit No. CS SCJ 41/2016 52028/16 titled as "AJEET PRASAD AGGARWAL VERSUS VIJAY KUMAR AND ORS." Pending Before The Court of Ms. Paridhi Sharma, Ld. JSCC-cum-Addl. SCJ-GJ, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi;

B. Pass appropriate order thereby setting aside the impugned order dated 01.07.2023 passed by Ms Shriya Agarwal, LD, JSCC cum ASCJ cum GJ, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in Suit No. CS SCJ 41/2016 52028/16 and allow the Application under order VII rule 11 of CPC of the revisionist;

C. Any other relief which deemed fit and proper may also be granted in favour of the revisionist and against the respondent."

2. The brief fact of the matter are discussed below:

a) The revisionist/petitioner is the owner of property at `Flat No. F-252, (duplex) Sarita Vihar, New Delhi-110076'. The respondent no. 1/plaintiff is residing at Flat No. F-251, ground floor, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi-110076. The respondent no. 1/plaintiff had filed a Civil Suit bearing no. CS SCJ 41/2016, for perpetual injunction and mandatory injunction against the petitioner/defendant before the Saket District Court, Delhi.

b) In the above said suit, the petitioner preferred an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC on the ground that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action. The learned Trial Court vide its order dated 1st July 2023 dismissed the said application of the petitioner.

c) Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 1st July 2023, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the learned Trial Court passed the impugned order without considering the facts and circumstances as well as the oral submissions made by the petitioner.

4. It is contended by the petitioner that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that there is no violation of any civil right of the respondent and hence, there is no basis of filing the said suit.

5. It is vehemently argued by the petitioner that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that there is no hindrance caused by the petitioner in the peaceful occupation and enjoyment of the respondent in his property, therefore, the suit does not disclose any cause of action.

6. It is vehemently argued that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit in question against the revisionist/petitioner since he has not been able to explain his locus standi. The said contention has not been dealt by the learned Court below properly while rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.

7. It is submitted that the impugned order is unjustified, unwarranted and contrary to law and has been passed without understanding the intent and objective of the laws, Acts and facts, and therefore, is liable to be set aside.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and submitted that the instant revision petition is nothing but grave abuse of the process of law. The same is liable to be dismissed, being bereft of any merits.

9. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court, passed the impugned order dated 1st July 2023 after considering the entire facts and applicable law in the instant matter. It is also submitted that the impugned order enunciates detailed reasoning whilst deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, filed by the plaintiff and there is no illegality or error committed by the learned Trial Court.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent further submitted that the learned Trial Court, after perusing the averments made in the plaint as well as the documents filed along with the plaint reached to the conclusion that the