$~16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + C.R.P. 1/2024 & CM APPL. 18/2024 MADHU BHARGAVA AND ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Sanjay Dewan, Sr. Adv. with Mr.

Shekhar Kumar, Mr. Harsh Kumar, Mr Nikhil & Mr. Neel Kr. Sharma, Advs. versus REENA BHARGAVA .....Respondent Through: Mr. R.K. Sharma & Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Mr. Sandeep Bhardwaj &

Mr. Ujjawal, Advocates CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

O R D E R

% 15.01.2026

1. This revision petition has been filed assailing order dated 7^th October 2023 passed by ADJ-03, North, Rohini Courts in CS No.405/2019, rejecting the application filed by petitioner-defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (“CPC”).

2. Petitioner no.1 is wife and petitioner no.2 is daughter-in-law of Late Sh. Suresh Bhargava, in whose favour rights were relinquished with respect to the first and second floor of property bearing no.1, SBI Colony, Delhi- 110009 (“suit property”). Respondent is the widow of late Sh. Umesh Bhargava, brother of late husband of petitioner no.1. As per the petition, Sh. Umesh Bhargava was neither residing in the suit property nor did he ever challenge the issue of possession.

3. It is contended that the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff was barred by limitation. However, certain subsequent events transpired from the written statement filed by petitioner/defendant in the original suit before the Trial Court.

4. Relinquishment deed dated 10^th December 1996 (Annexure-B) was propounded, on the basis of which Sh. Umesh Bhargava had allegedly relinquished his share in favour of Sh. Suresh Bhargava. Subsequently, mutation was obtained on 19^th June 1997, and conveyance deed on behalf of DDA, converting the property into freehold was executed on 3^rd February 2000 in favour of all four brothers namely Sh. Ramesh Chand Bhargava, Sh. Rakesh Bhargava, Sh. Suresh Bhargava and Sh. Dinesh Bhargava. A partition deed was also executed on 23^rd March 2000 between the four brothers relating to the suit property.

5. When these aspects were brought up before the Trial Court in the written statement, an amendment application was moved under Order VI Rule 17 CPC by the respondent/plaintiff seeking amendment of the plaint, which had originally been filed on 23^rd August 2019. It sought to add a prayer for declaration that the relinquishment deed dated 10^th December 1996, following by the partition deed dated 23^rd March 2000, be declared null and void. Accordingly, requisite paragraphs in the plaint were sought to be incorporated along with attendant reliefs. This application was allowed and no challenge to it was preferred by the petitioner.

6. However, the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by the petitioner/defendant, was rejected by the Trial Court on the basis that the suit cannot be rejected in part; and even though the contention by petitioner/defendant was that the original plaint was barred by limitation, addition of amended reliefs and grounds, the issue of limitation for purposes of declaration would arise on the date of knowledge of relinquishment deed and partition deed, i.e. filing of the written statement. On the basis of settled law that suit cannot be rejected in part, the impugned order was passed.

7. Counsel for petitioners contends that it is not disputed that plaintiff/defendant’s husband Sh. Umesh Bhargava passed away in 2012, and till then no relief of possession was sought even though they were not residing in the suit property.

8. This Court does not find any infirmity, material irregularity, or irregular exercise of jurisdiction insofar as the impugned order is concerned. In an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC a plaint cannot be rejected in part. This principle has been well established by the Supreme Court in the following decisions:

i) Sejal Glass Ltd. v. Navilan Merchants (P) Ltd., (2018) 11 SCC 780:

“4. It is settled law that the plaint as a whole alone can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11. In Maqsud Ahmad v. Mathra Datt & Co. [Maqsu