Shri M.M.Malhotra vs Shri Dharam Chand Handa
2014 Latest Caselaw 3420 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         C.R.P.Nos. 222/2013 & 223/2013
%                                                      30th July, 2014

1.     C.R.P. 222/2013 & CM No. 19803/2013

SHRI M.M.MALHOTRA                                        ......Petitioner
                 Through:                Mr. Vasudev Lalwani & Mr. Kapil
                                         Lalwani, Advs.


                          VERSUS

SHRI DHARAM CHAND HANDA                                  ...... Respondent
                Through:                 Mr. Raghu Tandon, Adv.

2.     C.R.P. 223/2013 & CM No. 19817/2013

SHRI S.K.KAPOOR                                     ......Petitioner
                          Through:       Mr. Vasudev Lalwani & Mr. Kapil
                                         Lalwani, Advs.


                          VERSUS

SHRI DHARAM CHAND HANDA                                  ...... Respondent
                Through:                 Mr. Raghu Tandon, Adv.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.     The law with respect to orders in an application under Order VII Rule

11 CPC is now well settled by thousands and thousands of judgments of
C.R.P.222/2013 & conn.                                                       Page 1 of 3
 Supreme Court.           In an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the

defence of merits is not to be seen and the contents of the plaint are deemed

to be correct.

2.     The subject suit is suit for recovery of arrears of rent. Merely because

the defendant/petitioner is contesting the tenancy on merits, an application

under Order VII Rule 11 CPC will not lie because all aspects of merit as to

disputed questions of fact requiring trial will have to be decided in

accordance with law at the stage of final arguments after evidence is led by

both the parties and not in an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.


3.     One fails to understand why litigants are being advised by counsels

that the suit should be decided at the stage of pleadings by filing an

application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The application filed under Order

VII Rule 11 CPC in fact does violate the language of order VII Rule 11 CPC

which states that the contents of the plaint are taken to be correct and cannot

be disputed at the time of deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11

CPC.


4.     In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the petition by which

the impugned order dated 15.10.2013 dismissed the application under Order

VII Rule 11 CPC is challenged, and the same is therefore dismissed with
C.R.P.222/2013 & conn.                                                      Page 2 of 3
 costs of Rs. 5,000/-. Costs shall be paid within a period of four weeks from

today.


C.R.P. 223/2013 & CM No. 19817/2013 (stay)

         In view of the reasoning given above, this petition is also dismissed

with costs of Rs.5,000/-. Costs shall be paid within four weeks from today.




JULY 30, 2014                                 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

sn