The Delhi High Court opined that for the purposes of Order VII Rule 11, the relevant facts are only the averments in the plaint. Further, the Trial Court can exercise the power at any stage of the suit i.e., before registering the plaint or after issuing summons and at any time before the conclusion of the trial.
It was also expounded that mere fact that the Trial Court has passed an erroneous decision does not amount to material irregularity and therefore, jurisdiction and power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 could not be invoked.
Brief Facts:
A suit for recovery of possession and damages was filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Thereafter, the Petitioners/Defendant filed an application for rejection of the plaint on the grounds of relief being barred by law.
The said application was dismissed by the Court and therefore, the present revision petition.
Contentions of the Petitioners:
It was argued that the two alternate reliefs i.e., possession and damages under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act and possession and damages based on title cannot be clubbed in one suit.
Further, it was argued that for purposes of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the relevant pleading is the plaint which the Court has to see and in the present case, the plaint made it clear that two alternative reliefs which could not be clubbed together were being sought.
Contentions of the Respondent:
It was argued that the suit was at the stage of evidence and therefore, application under Order VII Rule 11 was only filed to delay the proceedings.
Observations of the Court:
It was noted that the Trial Court had held that the grounds raised by the Petitioners for rejection of the plaint directly went into the merits of the Suit, which fell into the subject matter of the trial.
It was opined that for the purposes of Order VII Rule 11, the relevant facts are only the averments in the plaint. Further, the Trial Court can exercise the power at any stage of the suit i.e., before registering the plaint or after issuing summons and at any time before the conclusion of the trial.
It was also expounded that mere fact that the Trial Court has passed an erroneous decision does not amount to material irregularity and therefore, jurisdiction and power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 could not be invoked.
The decision of the Court:
Based on the aforementioned reasoning, the High Court dismissed the revision petition.
Case Title: Monika Singh & Anr. V. Sudha Prasad
Case No.: C.R.P. 174/2022
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chandra Dhari Singh
Advocates for Petitioners: Advs. Mr. Kunal Khanna, Ms. Sonia Dhariwal
Advocates for Respondent: Advs. Mr. Gagan Gandhi, Mr. Akshay Malik, Ms. Sonakshi Chaturvedi
Read More @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
