##PAGE1##

$~78

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

I.A. 32130/2025

IN

+ CS(OS) 349/2025

SMT. SUNITA RANI .....Plaintiff

Through: Mr. Saurabh Rajpal, Mr. Amogh

Bansal, Mr. Arpit Bansal and Mr.

Kapil Raghav, Adv.

versus

SH. KARAN SINGH & ORS. .....Defendants

Through: Mr. Vivek Bhardwaj, Adv. for D-1

Mr. Vidit Gupta, Adv. for D-3

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

O R D E R

% 22.12.2025

I.A. 32130/2025 (seeking rejection of plaint)

1. The present application has been filed on behalf of defendant no.1

under Order VII Rule 11(a), (b) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure,

1908 (‘CPC’), seeking rejection of the plaint.

2. The grounds under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as stated in the application

are as follows:

i. The cause of action in the present suit is based on false and

fabricated facts and the suit is barred by limitation.

ii. The plaintiff has over-valued the property for the purposes of

possession at a sum of Rs.2,21,00,000/- without providing any

CS(OS)349/2025 Page1of

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/01/2026 at 01:07:41

basis for the same.

iii. The subject matter of the suit is identical with previous suit

being CS No.784/2022 pending before the Court of District

Judge, Shahdara, District Karkardooma Courts.

3. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking possession,

along with other ancillary reliefs qua property no. B-11, West Jyoti Nagar,

Delhi-110094, falling in part of Khasra No. 65, 66, 67 in Village Sikdarpur,

Shahdara (‘suit property’).

4. It is stated that the suit property comprises a total area of 800 sq. yds.

and the plaintiff and defendant no.3, Sunil Kumar Gupta, are joint co-

owners in respect of 400 sq. yds. each of the suit property.

5. It is stated that defendants no. 1 and 2 have forcefully dispossessed

the plaintiff from the suit property and have illegally let out the suit

property.

6. I have heard counsel for the parties.

7. It is a settled position of law that the enabling power of the Court to

reject the plaint in exercise of power under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is

circumscribed by the grounds under clause (a) to (f).

8. The position of law is that rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule

11 of the CPC is permissible only when the plaint, on its face and without

considering the defence, fails to disclose a cause of action, is barred by any

law, is undervalued, or is insufficiently stamped. At this preliminary stage,

the Court is required to confine its examination strictly to the averments

made in the plaint and not venture into the merits or veracity of the claims.

If any triable issues arise from the pleadings, the suit cannot be summarily

rejected.

CS(OS)349/2025 Page2of

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/01/2026 at 01:07:41

9. It is the case of the defendant no.1 that the suit is barred by limitation

and that the cause of action in the present suit is based on false and

fabricated facts.

10. In paragraph 25 of the plaint, as set out below, the plaintiff has

detailed the cause of action for filing the suit:-

“25. That the cause of action to file the present suit arose for the first time in

favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant when the Plaintiff became

owner of thesuit propertyby virtueof registered Gift Deeds dated28.12.2021

executed by Sh. Kishan Avtar in favour of the Plaintiff, whereby all rights,

titles and interests in the 400 sq. yds., (Portion 3 & Portion 4) of the suit

property were transferred in her favour. The cause of action further arose on

29.01.2022, when Kishan Avtar along with Plaintiff returned from the

hospital and they were illegally prevented from entering their house (suit

property) by Defendant no. 1 and 2. It further arose when Kishan Avtar made

a phone