Delhi High Court
Neha Dutta vs Capitol Art House (P) Ltd on 7 February, 2020
$~56
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 07.02.2020
+ C.R.P. 261/2019
NEHA DUTTA ..... Petitioner
versus
CAPITOL ART HOUSE (P) LTD ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Kuldeep Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent: Ms. Leena Tuteja and Ms. Diksha Bhatia,
Advocates
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 5116/2020 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CM APPL. 5115/2020 (stay)
No ground is made out to stay the proceedings of the trial court.
The application is dismissed.
C.R.P. 261/2019
1. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for
hearing today. Next date 30.04.2020 is hereby cancelled.
2. Petitioner impugns order dated 20.08.2019 whereby the
application of the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been
dismissed.
3. Respondent has filed the subject Suit for cancellation of
registered relinquishment deed dated 26.08.2015 as also for
permanent injunction thereby restraining petitioner from transferring,
selling, alienating and and/or creating any third-party rights in respect
of Shop No. 4/6 in building bearing Municipal No. 4/1-14 (A-1/4)
Kalka Das Marg, Eleven Style Mile, Ward 1, Mehrauli, New Delhi of
Village Mehrauli, Tehsil Hauz Khas, New Delhi known as 'The Casa
Hazel/Vidge Centre', Opposite Qutub Minar, Mehrauli.
4. The contention of the respondent in the Suit, inter-alia, is that
respondent is the recorded owner of the subject property having
purchased the same by way of registered sale deed dated 13.06.2012.
It is contended that the said property was originally under the tenancy
and in possession of one Mangal Swaroop and at the time of purchase
of the same, said property was in illegal possession of one Bharat
Bhushan Dutta, husband of the petitioner who continued to occupy the
same through earlier tenant holding over on low monthly payment
without any registered agreement.
5. It is contended that despite the fact that petitioner has no
ownership in the property, subject relinquishment deed has been
executed by the mother and sister of the petitioner in her favour
stating therein that they are owners and in possession of the subject
shop. It is contended that since the respondent is the recorded owner
of the property and the executants of the relinquishment deeds are not
the owners thereof, subject Suit for cancellation of the registered
relinquishment deed has been filed.
6. Subject application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was filed by
the petitioner contending that the plaint fails to disclose any cause of
action. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that there
are several other proceedings, inter-se, the parties where petitioner has
disputed the registration of the sale deed in favour of the respondents.
7. Learned counsel submits that since there is a dispute raised by
the petitioner qua the title of the respondent, subject plaint is liable to
be rejected.
8. I am unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner, in as much as, for consideration of an application under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the averments in the plaint have to be read
with a demur and the defence of the defendant in the Suit is not to be
considered at that stage.
9. Since the contention of the respondent is that respondent is the
recorded owner of the subject property and the mother and sister of
petitioner are not the owners and they have registered the
relinquishment deed stating that they are the owners, it gives a cause
of action to the respondent to seek cancellation of the relinquishment
deed.
10. On perusal of the averments of the plaint shows that the plaint
does disclose a cause of action. Merely because there are other
litigations pending inter se the parties in which the petitioner has
challenged the registration of the sale deed in favour of the
respondent, is no ground to reject the plaint under order 7 rule 11 on
the ground that it does not disclose a cause of action, when the facts
pleaded do show a cause of action.
11. Accordingly, I find no infirmity in the view taken by the trial
court that the plaint discloses a cause of action and cannot be rejected
under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
12. I find no merit in the petition. The petition is accordingly
dismissed.
13. It is clarified that this Court has neither considered not
commented upon the merits of the contentions of either party.
14. Order dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
FEBRUARY 07, 2020
'rs'
