IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that the Trial Court can exercise the power under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC at any stage of the suit and the averments in the plaint are crucial for deciding such an application.

ORDER

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

"a. Set aside the impugned order dated 05.08.2023 passed by Sh. Ajay Kumar Malik ASCJ CUM JSCC CUM GUARDIAN Judge Dwarka Court, New Delhi in CS SCJ 630/2018 and allow the present revision petition.

b. Summon and call for the record of suit no. CS SCJ 630/2018 titled as Sanju Mishra Vs. Rajbir & Ors. pending in the court of Sh. Ajay Kumar Malik ASCJ CUM JSCC CUM GUARDIAN JUDGE Dwarka Court New Delhi.

c. Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit in fact and circumstance of the case."

2. The parties in the present petitioner are neighbors residing in Bharat Vihar Colony, Kakrola, New Delhi. The respondent no. 1 (plaintiff before the Trial Court) had filed a suit before the Trial Court for permanent and mandatory injunction seeking demolishing of the house (`suit property' hereinafter) on the grounds that the suit property is an unauthorized construction.

3. During the pendency of the said suit, the petitioner (defendant before the Trial Court) had filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC on grounds that the suit is barred by Section 9 of the CPC.

4. The learned Trial Court rejected the application vide order dated 5th August, 2023 and held that the scope of rejection of plaint under the said provision is limited and the perusal of plaint suggest locus standi and cause of action to file the suit.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in rejecting the application as there is express or implied bar to the jurisdiction of Civil Court.

7. It is submitted that the Section 347A of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 provides for constitution of Appellate Tribunal for adjudication of the subject matter of the said dispute, which was duly constituted in the present matter. Furthermore, an appeal has been pending against the order of the Commissioner of the respondent Corporation.

8. It is also submitted that the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (`the Act' hereinafter) provides for a specific forum for the adjudication of the dispute and Section 9 of the CPC bars the Civil Courts to entertain and adjudicate the subject matter of the dispute.

9. It is further submitted that the case relied upon by the learned Court for the dismissal of the application is in favor of the petitioner whereby the Coordinate Bench of this Court had dismissed the suit filed for permanent and mandatory injunction.

10. In view of the above arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the petition be allowed and the reliefs be granted as prayed.

11. Per Contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 6 (`respondent Corporation' hereinafter) vehemently opposed the petition submitting to effect that the learned Trial Court had rightly rejected the application as Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC has a limited scope whereby, the plaint along with the documents can only be relied upon for the adjudication of the application.

12. Therefore, in view of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that the instant petition, being devoid of any merit, is liable to be dismissed.

13. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

14. It is contented by the petitioner that the suit property is situated in an unauthorized colony and the said colony has a protection from demolition by the special law i.e. `National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provision) Second Amendment (Ordinance) 2020' and the dispute between the parties is already pending before the appropriate authority.

15. Before analyzing the impugned order, it is opposite to look into the scope of dismissal of suit in an application file