A plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 if it does not disclose a cause of action or is barred by limitation, emphasizing the need for substantive over procedural assessment.

JUDGMENT :

Deepak Gupta, J.

1. By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners assail the order dated 16.12.2024 (Annexure P-8), whereby trial Court dismissed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint, moved by the petitioners (defendant Nos.l to 5 herein), in a suit filed by the plaintiff (respondent herein).

2.1 A perusal of the paper book would reveal that the dispute pertains to House No.556, Sector 8B, Chandigarh, which was owned by Late Justice M.R. Sharma. Justice Sharma expired on 04.01.2018. His wife Smt. Yogeshwari expired on 23.01.2021. Justice Sharma had 8 children - 3 sons, namely, Shiv Kumar, Ram Kumar & Chander Mohan, and 5 daughters, namely, Suman, Sunita, Sangeeta, Veena and Anjana. One of the sons Chander Mohan has filed this suit by impleading 05 children as defendant Nos.l to 5, who are the petitioners before this Court. It is averred by the plaintiff that two children, namely, Shiv (since dead) and Anjana were disowned by Late Justice M.R. Sharma during his life time.

2.2 Plaintiff claimed exclusive ownership of the house in dispute on the basis of a hand written letter/wish/Will dated 13.05.2006 purported to have been executed by Late Justice M.R. Sharma, bequeathing the house in his favour. Plaintiff further sought declaration that alleged Will dated 23.05.2006 purported to be executed by Late Justice M.R. Sharma be declared as null and void, as the same is a forged and fabricated document and not binding on him. Plaintiff also prayed for a decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from creating any charge/lien in any manner and not to alienate or transfer the suit property to defendant No.6 or to anybody else. Decree for permanent injunction is also sought to restrain the defendants from interfering in his possession & occupation of the house in dispute.

2.3 It is alleged by the plaintiff that after the death of Late Justice M.R. Sharma, defendants Nos.1 to 5 in connivance with each other have got transferred the disputed house in equal shares including the name of the plaintiff on the basis of forged and fabricated Will dated 23.05.2006. This fact was never disclosed to the plaintiff, as he is suffering from acute throat cancer since 2009 and is getting his regular treatment and living on strong medicines. It was alleged that defendant Nos.1 to 5 in connivance with Smt. Anjana Sharma, sister of the plaintiff, on whom plaintiff was reposing faith, with malafide intention and to grab the entire house had obtained the signatures of the plaintiff on certain blank papers, when he was under influence of heavy dosages. It was alleged further that defendants had converted those blank papers into an alleged agreement to sell in favour of defendant No.6, about which plaintiff came to know, when some of the amount was deposited in his account by Anjana Sharma in connivance with the alleged buyer - defendant No.6. It is averred that he came to know about all these facts, when the third party, i.e. respondent No.6 - Rajinder Mittal visited the house, started threatening the plaintiff along with the defendants to get the said house vacated, claiming that he had purchased the same from defendants. It was claimed by the plaintiff that the cause of action had arisen in his favour, when he recently came to know about the transfer of the house in favour of defendants and himself on the basis of forged and fabricated Will and further when agreement to sell was executed with defendant No.6 by defendant Nos.1 to 5 without his consent and knowledge and when defendants refused to admit the contents of the Will/last Wish dated 13.05.2006 in favour of the plaintiff and further to get the house vacated forcibly and illegally from him.

3.1 By moving an application under Order VII Rule 11 (d) CPC read with Section 151 CPC (Annexure P-6), defendants sought rejection of th