For the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the court must only consider the averments in the plaint. Issues such as res sub judice, non-joinder of parties, and the truthfulness of pleadings are matters of trial and not grounds for rejection at the threshold.

Table of Content
1. summary of the suit and grounds for plaint rejection. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. scope of examination for rejecting a plaint. (Para 6)
3. civil court jurisdiction and statutory bars. (Para 7 , 8)
4. grounds not suitable for summary rejection of plaint. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
5. scope of revisional jurisdiction and final dismissal. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

The present civil revision petition has been filed by the defendant-petitioner assailing the order dated 08.01.2026 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram, whereby the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint has been dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, the plaintiffs instituted a suit seeking relief of mandatory and permanent injunction alleging illegal obstruction in ingress and egress to the EWS flats, disconnection of electricity and water supply and raising of an illegal wall by the defendants.

3. During pendency of the suit, the defendant-petitioner moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint primarily on the grounds that:

(i) the suit was barred under Section 89 of the Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies Act, 2012;

(ii) the plaint did not disclose any cause of action;

(iii) the suit was barred by the principle of res sub judice; and

(iv) the suit suffered from non-joinder of necessary parties.

The learned trial Court, after considering the matter, dismissed the application vide the impugned order.

4. Assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the civil Court lacked jurisdiction in view of the statutory bar contained in Section 89 of the Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies Act, 2012. It is further argued that the plaint does not disclose a valid cause of action and that the suit deserves rejection on account of pendency of earlier proceedings and non-impleadment of necessary parties.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the paper-book with due consideration.

6. At the outset, it requires to be noticed that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court is required to examine only the averments contained in the plaint and the documents appended therewith. The defence taken by the defendant in the written statement or in the application for rejection of plaint cannot be looked into at that stage. The law on this aspect is too well settled to require elaborate discussion.

7. The principal contention raised by the petitioner pertains to the alleged bar of jurisdiction under Section 89 of the Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies Act, 2012. The learned trial Court has rightly observed that the plaintiffs have sought reliefs of mandatory and permanent injunction pertaining to restoration of electricity and water supply, removal of obstruction and protection of ingress and egress to the EWS flats. Such reliefs are essentially civil in nature and cannot be said, at this stage, to fall exclusively within the adjudicatory domain of the authorities constituted under the 2012 Act.

8. The exclusion of jurisdiction of civil Courts is not to be readily inferred unless the statute expressly or by necessary implication bars such jurisdiction. Even where a special statute creates a forum, the jurisdiction of the civil Court survives in matters where the relief claimed is beyond the competence of the statutory authority or where immediate civil remedies such as injunction are sought. The learned trial Court has correctly relied upon the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh , AIR 1969 SC 78, while holding that the present dispute cannot be held to be barred outright at the threshold.

9. Equally meritless is the argument regarding absence of cause of action. A meaningful reading of the plaint clearly shows that the plaintiffs have speci

Click Here to Read the rest of this document