$~39

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision: 18.12.2025

+ RFA(OS) 8/2025 and CM APPL. 6785/2025

ASHISH KUMAR .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Sujeet Kumar Mishra, Mr.

Harsh Kumar Pandey, Advs.

versus

SMT KAMINI KUMAR & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Ms. Manpreet Kaur, Adv. for

R-1.

Mr. Ashim Vachher, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Saiba Meher Rajpal,

Adv. for R-2.

Mr Pankaj Balwan, Mr Utkarsh,

Advs. for R-3 to 5.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN

SHANKAR

J U D G M E N T (ORAL) ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. Through the present Appeal, the Appellant assails the correctness of the order dated 21.10.2024 [hereinafter referred to as „Impugned Order‟] passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the Plaint filed by the Appellant [Plaintiff before the learned Single Judge] was rejected on the first date of hearing under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter

referred to as „CPC‟].

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties before this Court shall

be referred to in accordance with their status before the learned Single Judge.

3. From a perusal of the Impugned Order, it emerges that the learned Single Judge rejected the plaint primarily on the following grounds:

i. that the Plaint was not maintainable in view of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 [hereinafter referred to as „SRA‟];

ii. that there existed a demarcating dividing line with respect to the roof/terrace rights over the second floor of the property bearing No. 35, Anand Lok, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as „suit property‟] between the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1; and iii. that the Plaintiff had no cause of action since the Defendant No.1 allegedly admitted that the Plaintiff had a 50% share with respect to the roof/terrace rights over the second floor.

4. The Plaintiff filed the Plaint against the following Defendants:

i. Defendant No.1 – Smt. Kamini Kumar;

ii. Defendant No.2 – Capt. Avinash Chander Malhotra;

iii. Defendant No.3 – M/s Bracknell Investments Pvt. Ltd.;

iv. Defendant No.4 – Mr. Sanjeev Mittal; and v. Defendant No.5 – Smt. Indira Menon.

5. The Defendant Nos.1 and 2 entered appearance before the learned Single Judge on the first date of hearing. However, the Defendant Nos.3 to 5 were not issued Notice. In the Plaint, the Plaintiff sought the following reliefs:

“i. Grant a decree of declaration in favour of the Plaintiff declaring that the Plaintiff has absolute right title and interest having perfected the title in the suit property being undivided 50% portion of Roof /Terrace (unconstructed Third Floor) over the Second Floor admeasuring about 3641 Sq.ft in the property bearing No. 35, Anand Lok. New Delhi-110049. (more specifically detailed in the Schedule A annexed to the plaint);

ii. Grant decree of perpetual injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants permanently restraining the Defendants, their agents, servants, relatives etc. interfering with the peaceful possession, occupation, enjoyment, use of the suit property by the Plaintiff;

iii. For granting relief of mandatory injunction against the Defendants restrain Defendants from interfering with the title and possession of the Plaintiff by creating any third party interest in the suit property and illegally dispossessing the Plaintiff from the suit property;

iv. Costs of the instant suit; and”

6. This Court has heard learned counsel representing the parties at length and with their able assistance, perused the record.

7. Learned counsel representing the Respondent No.1 contended that the suit property stood divided between the parties by virtue of a Deed of Partition dated 10.03.1997 and, therefore, no dispute survived.

8. Learned senior counsel representing the Respondent No.2/ Defendant No.2 submitted that the Respondent No.2 has purchased the front portion of the terrace from late Sh. Arun Kumar, who is the husband of Respondent No.1/ Defendant No.1.

9. The power of the Court to reject a plaint at the threshold is trac