A simpliciter suit for injunction is not maintainable if the title is disputed and possession is admitted, with the court's jurisdiction limited to the documents on record.

ORDER :

CM APPL. 43934/2023 [For condonation of delay in filing Petition]

1. This is an Application filed by the Petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 31 days in filing the Petition.

2. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that they have no objection if the prayer in the present Application is allowed.

3. The Application is accordingly allowed. The delay is condoned.

C.R.P. 235/2023, CM APPL. 43932/2023 [For stay]

4. The present Petition has been filed by the Petitioners under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’] seeking to challenge an order dated 18.04.2023 passed by Civil Judge-II, South West, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Order’]. By the Impugned Order, the Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by the Petitioner (Defendant No.1 before the learned Trial Court) has been dismissed.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner/Defendant No.1 filed the Application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) CPC with the following prayers:

i) The plaint has no cause of action;

ii) The plaint is barred by the Proviso to Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 [hereinafter referred to as ‘SR Act’] and the Respondents (Plaintiffs before the learned Trial Court) are not entitled to the relief of mandatory injunctions;

iii) A simpliciter suit for injunction without declaration and relief of possession is not maintainable as the same being barred under Section 41 (h) of the SR Act.

iv) The title of the Respondents/Plaintiffs is disputed and/or under a cloud, in terms of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Anathula Sudharkar vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs and Others, (2008) 4 SCC 594, a simpliciter suit for injunction is not maintainable.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Respondents/Plaintiffs have, in their plaint, stated that the Petitioner/Defendant No.1 is the owner of the suit property. It is further stated in the plaint that forceful possession of the suit property has been taken by the Petitioner/Defendant No.1 from the Respondents/Plaintiffs. Thus, it is contended that once it is admitted that the Petitioner/Defendant No.1 is in possession of the suit property, a simpliciter injunction suit cannot be maintained. Learned Senior Counsel seeks to rely on the following judgments passed by the Supreme Court and Division Bench of this Court in this behalf:

i) Anathula Sudharkar vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs and Others, (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 594

ii) Raj Kumar Garg vs. S.M. Ezaz & Ors., 2012 (132) DRJ 108 (DB)

iii) Ram Saran and Another vs. Smt. Ganga Devi, (1973) 2 SCC 60

7. Learned Counsel for the Respondents, at the outset, submits that the Reply that has been filed to the Revision Petition was filed with incorrect instructions. Learned Counsel seeks liberty to withdraw the same.

7.1 Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that the sale deed filed by the Petitioner must be examined.

8. Quite clearly, given the fact that the jurisdiction of this Court in examination of an Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is limited to the documents which have been placed on record by the Respondents (Plaintiffs before the learned Trial Court), documents filed by the Petitioner (Defendant No.1 before the learned Trial Court) cannot be examined by this Court. Thus, the submission of the Respondents is without any merit.

9. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the Respondents that the plaint does not contain any submissions qua possession and this is a lapse in the plaint as it was drafted by another counsel. It is however contended that it is the duty of the counsel for the Respondents to bring the true and correct facts on record.

9.1 Learned Counsel for the Respondents seeks to rely upon paragraph 5 of the plaint as well as paragraph 3 of the Reply to the Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to submit that the Respondents/Plaintiffs have stated that they were ke