Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Neena Bansal Krishna, J.
Dropti Devi - Appellant
Versus
Ram Pyari & Ors. - Respondents
CS(OS) 348 of 2018
Decided On : 26-02-2024
CPC - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11 - Order II Rule 2 - [CPC 1908, Order VII Rule 11; Order II Rule 2] - The court discussed the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 and Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and highlighted the bar on filing a fresh suit on the same cause of action and the consequences of vexatious litigation. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of these provisions and the previous dismissals of similar suits.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for partition of a property, which was dismissed earlier. The defendants filed applications seeking rejection of the plaintiff's suit under Order VII Rule 11 and Order II Rule 2 of the CPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the present suit was barred by limitation and did not disclose any cause of action. It also noted that the plaintiff's conduct in filing multiple suits based on identical pleadings was vexatious and unwarranted.
Issues: The issues revolved around the rejection of the plaintiff's suit under Order VII Rule 11 and Order II Rule 2 of the CPC, the bar on filing a fresh suit on the same cause of action, and the vexatious nature of the plaintiff's conduct.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the present suit was rightly rejected under Order VII Rule 11 and Order II Rule 2 of the CPC due to the absence of cause of action and the plaintiff's vexatious conduct in filing multiple suits based on identical pleadings.
Final Decision: The court rejected the plaintiff's suit under Order VII Rule 11 and Order II Rule 2 of the CPC and imposed costs on the plaintiff.
ORDER
I.A. 12859/2018 (u/O VII Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the Plaint) and I.A. 13060/2018 (u/Order II Rule 2 of CPC filed by defendant dismissal of the present Suit.)
1. The application bearing No. I.A. 12859/2018 has been filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC") by the applicants/defendants seeking rejection of the Plaint. By way of application bearing No. I.A. 13060/2018, filed under Order II Rule 2 CPC, the applicants/defendant Nos. 1 to 4 seeks dismissal of the suit.
2. It is submitted in the IA 12859/2018, application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, that the plaintiff had filed the Civil Suit bearing No. CS(OS) 3929/1992 seeking partition of the suit property, but the same was withdrawn by the non-applicant/plaintiff on 24.03.1994 without liberty to file a fresh Suit. It was stated in the said suit that the cause of action arose in August, 1992 with regard to the suit property. The non-applicant/plaintiff filed a consequent Civil Suit bearing No. 2607/2013 on the basis of identical pleadings which was dismissed vide Order dated 05.10.2015 on the ground of being barred by limitation against which no Appeal was preferred by the non-applicant/plaintiff and the said Order has assumed finality. The present Suit seeking same relief is, therefore, barred.
3. The plaintiff fraudulently and frivolously took a plea that there was a family settlement between the plaintiff and the answering defendants and also sent a legal notice to this effect. The plaintiff had also filed the Contempt Petition No. 404/2011 against the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 in the said suit which was dismissed vide Order dated 13.05.2013.
4. It is, therefore, submitted that the Suit of the plaintiff does not disclose any cause of action and the same is barred by limitation and the Suit is liable to be rejected. Learned counsel for the defendants has submitted that the two Suits filed in the year 1992 and again in 2013 already stand dismissed. The present Suit is, therefore, also not maintainable.
5. There is further submitted that already a Probate Petition No. TEST.CAS. 43/2014 in respect of the registered Will dated 03.04.1980 of Late Shri Bhudar Lal, pending adjudication at the stage of the evidence of the parties. It is, therefore, submitted that the present Suit is liable to be rejected.
6. It is submitted in the application under Order II Rule 2 CPC, that the non-applicant/plaintiff had filed the Suit No. CS(OS) 3929/1992 for partition of the suit property which was dismissed as withdrawn vide Order dated 24.03.1994 in view of the Family Settlement dated 05.12.1993. Thereafter, the Contempt Petition was filed as stated above, which was dismissed vide Order dated 13.05.2013 by observing that since the Suit had been withdrawn, there was no ground to initiate the contempt proceedings. Thereafter, the Suit No. CS(OS) 2607/2013 for Mandatory Injunction for issuing directions to the legal heirs of Late Shri Puran Chand to implement the Family Settlement dated 05.12.1993 and to give her 1/3rd share was filed, which was also dismissed by this Court vide Order dated 05.10.2015 by observing that earlier Suit had been dismissed as withdrawn without seeking any permission to file a fresh Suit on the same cause of action and the second Suit was vexatious and, therefore, rejected.
7. Thus, it is submitted that the non-applicant/plaintiff has preferred the present Suit for partition on the basis of identical pleadings by adding new reliefs which is barred by Order II and Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Therefore, the prayer is made that the present Suit be dismissed.
8. Despite opportunities being given, the plaintiff has failed to file any Reply to the present Applications and her right to file same was closed vide Order dated 29.08.2023.
9. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the defendants relied on the case of M. Nagabhushan v. State of Karnataka and Ors., (2011) 3 SCC 408; Dahiben v. A
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application and interpretation of Order VII Rule 11 and Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to reject a suit for lack of caus....
Courts must reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 if it discloses no cause of action or is barred by limitation. This power must be used to terminate vexatious litigation where 'clever drafting' at....
The right to seek partition is a recurring cause of action, and a fresh suit is not barred by the dismissal of a previous suit for non-prosecution under CPC.
Court's jurisdiction in rejecting a plaint is limited to the averments within it, and cannot be influenced by extrinsic documents or biases regarding legitimacy of claims.
The bar under Order XXIII Rule 3A of the CPC does not apply to a stranger to the compromise, and the plea of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law to be determined after evidence has been le....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit for partition can be barred by law and limitation if there is already a decree and final decree in place, and the plaintiff fails to en....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plea of res judicata requires consideration of the pleadings, issues, and decision in the previous suit, which is beyond the scope of Orde....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a meaningful reading of the plaint, scrutiny of the cause of action, and prevention of illusory causes of action to avoid circumventin....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
