IMPORTANT POINT
The application for rejection of the plaint has to show that the suit is barred by law and the said bar should appear from the pleadings of the plaintiff itself. The court found that the learned Trial Court rightly decided the petitioner's application and dismissed it since it found no ground for rejecting the respondent's plaint.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 115 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (hereinafter "CPC") praying as follows:

"i. To call for the records of C.S. DJ No. 131 of 2022, pending before the Ld. ADJ-III South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi.

ii. To allow the present revision petition and set aside the order dated 25.07.2023, passed by the Court of the Ld. ADJ-III, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in C.S. DJ No. 131 of 2022

iii. To allow the application under Order VII Rule 11 filed by the Petitioner herein, and dismiss the C.S. DJ No. 131 of 2022 pending before the ADJ-III, South East District, Saket District Court, New Delhi

iv. Pass any other Order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit."

2. The relevant facts necessary for the adjudication of the present revision petition have been reproduced as under:

a. The respondent is mother of the petitioner. Mrs. Radha Mitra is sister of the petitioner and she resides with her husband and two children. The respondent at present resides with Mrs. Radha Mitra. Shri Jogindra Mohan Dass, the late father of the petitioner and husband of the respondent, had purchased the property situated at Pocket K-12, Chittaranjan Park

b. The plaintiff i.e., the respondent herein, had filed a civil suit bearing CS DJ No. 918/2019 praying for partition and damages from the defendant i.e., the petitioner herein, qua property bearing no. Pocket K-12, Ground Floor, Chittaranjan Park, South Delhi, Delhi-110019 (hereinafter "Suit Property"), claiming herself to be one of the legal heirs of the husband Late Sh. Jogindra Mohan Dass.

c. The above said civil suit was withdrawn by the respondent with the permission of the learned Court below vide order dated 24th March 2021. The Court below, while allowing the withdrawal of the said suit granted liberty to file a fresh suit in terms of Order XXIII Rule 1 (3) of the CPC. The respondent then filed the present suit for seeking possession from the petitioner qua the same suit property which was the subject matter of the earlier suit on the basis of the relinquishment deed dated 21st May 1997. The fresh suit filed by the respondent was registered as civil suit bearing CS DJ No. 131/2022, before the learned Trial Court.

d. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, seeking rejection of the respondent's plaint. The said application was dismissed by the learned ADJ-03, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, vide order dated 25th July 2023.

e. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking revision of the impugned order dated 25th July 2023.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in passing the impugned order dated 25th July 2023, and failed to take into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the matter in hand.

4. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction while adjudicating upon the petitioner's application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.

5. It is submitted that the fresh suit instituted by the respondent on the same cause of action is barred by the law and due to the said reason, the fresh civil suit instituted by the respondent ought to be dismissed by the learned Court below.

6. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that Order XXIII Rule 1 (3) of the CPC, does not permit a party to make contradictory stands, and set out an entirely different case from what was originally set out.

7. It is submitted that any plaint, statement, averment made before a Court of law is accompanied with a declaration that the facts therein are true and correct, and it is a complete representation of the facts of the case as believed to be true by the party making such averments. It is also submitted that withdrawing a suit, once instituted and thereaft