C.R.P. No.97/2007

Page No.1 of 3

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

C.R.P. No.97 of 2007 & C.M. Appl. No.7409 of 2007

%

11.02.2010

KUMKUM GUPTA & ANR.

…...Petitioners

Through: Ms. Anu Bagai, Advocate.

Versus

ALOK GOYLE & ANR.

…...Respondents

Through: Mr. Vinay Bhasin, Senior Advocate with

Mr. J.C. Mahindroo & Mr. H.L. Raina,

Advocates for R-1.

Mr. Anurag Chawla, Advocate for R-2.

Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, Advocate for R-3.

Date of Reserve: 4^th February, 2010

Date of Order: 11^th February, 2010

JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

J U D G M E N T

1.

By this petition, the petitioners have assailed an order dated 15^th February, 2007

passed by learned Civil Judge whereby an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC

made by the petitioner was dismissed.

2.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent No.1, who

was plaintiff before the trial court had made false averments in the subject suit. There

was another suit filed between the parties wherein the respondent No.1 was defendant and

the stand taken by the respondent in that suit as defendant was contradictory to the stand

taken by the respondent in the present suit where respondent No.1 is plaintiff. Learned

counsel for the petitioners presented to the court a chart of the pleadings of respondent

2010:DHC:849

C.R.P. No.97/2007

Page No.2 of 3

No.1 in two cases in order to show that the stand taken by the respondent in two cases

was contradictory and contrary to each other and the suit, out of which this petition has

arisen, filed by the respondent was a false suit. The petitioners submitted that the court

should do a meaningful reading of the pleadings and if the court finds that respondent

No.1 was out to misuse the judicial process and had filed a false suit, the court should nip

this evil in the bud. She relied upon T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal & Anr.; AIR

1977 Supreme Court 2421 wherein the Supreme Court had observed that the civil court

must do a meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint, and if it is found that it was a

manifestly vexatious and meritless in disclosing a clear right to sue, the civil court should

exercise its power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to ensure that the purpose of Order VII

Rule 11 CPC was fulfilled.

3.

It is settled law that in order to consider the rejection of a suit under Order VII

Rule 11 CPC, the court has to look into the contents of the plaint alone and cannot take

into account the defence raised by the defendant. The court after a purposeful reading, as

observed by the Supreme Court in T. Arivandandam’s case (supra) should come to the

conclusion that there was no cause of action disclosed in the plaint. There is no doubt

that the court has to keep in mind that a clever drafting of the plaint might have been

resorted by the plaintiff to create a cause of action when none existed. However, the

court while considering the maintainability of the plaint has to presume that the facts

stated by the plaintiff were correct and then see if the cause of action was there or not.

The court cannot reject the plaint taking into account defendant’s version that facts were

stated falsely. It is not that the court is powerless and cannot dismiss the suit on the

ground of concealment of facts or not coming to the court with clean hands but that

dismissal of suit cannot be under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Under Order VII Rule 11

2010:DHC:849

C.R.P. No.97/2007

Page No.3 of 3

CPC, the court has to reject the plaint if the conditions as mentioned in this order are

satisfied, that is, either the suit is barred by some law or the suit does not disclo