Delhi High Court
Capital Land Builders Pvt Ltd & ... vs Shiv Kumar Jindad & Ors. on 19 January, 2022
$~20 (2022 Cause list)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 19th January, 2022
+ CM(M) 69/2022
CAPITAL LAND BUILDERS PVT LTD
& ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Gyaneshwar Narayan,
Advocate.
versus
SHIV KUMAR JINDAD & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
JUDGMENT
PRATEEK JALAN, J. (ORAL)
The proceedings in the matter have been conducted through
video conferencing.
CM APPL. 3466/2022 (for exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
CM(M) 69/2022
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed
against an order dated 13.09.2021 passed in CS No. 702/18, by which
the learned Senior Civil Judge, North-East, Karkardooma Courts,
Delhi, has rejected the application of the petitioner-defendants herein
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:20.01.2022
under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
["CPC"].
2. The respondent Nos. 1 to 36 ["the plaintiffs"] filed the suit
before the Trial Court on 02.11.2018, arraying the petitioners herein
and the respondents No. 37 to 40 as defendants in the suit. The
plaintiffs claimed to be the owners in possession of undivided shares
in land measuring about 800 Bighas in various Khasra Nos. in village
Gokulpur, Delhi - 110094. As against the petitioners, the plaintiffs'
principal claim is for a declaration against a sale deed executed by one
M/s. G.S. Kashyap and Sons (HUF) in favour of the petitioner No.1
herein, and as also an injunction against the petitioners from creating
third-party interests in the said land. The plaintiffs also made three
applications for injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the
CPC.
3. The petitioners filed a written statement on 12.12.2018 and
thereafter also made an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the
CPC. In the said application, the petitioners contended that the
plaintiffs had filed no title documents in support of their claim of
ownership, and had only filed revenue records which were insufficient
to establish title. It was further submitted that the plaintiffs' claim of
possession was false.
4. By the impugned order dated 13.09.2021, the learned Trial
Court has rejected the petitioners' application under Order VII Rule 11
of the CPC, recording the following findings:-
a) Although the Trial Court has found that the plaintiffs have not
filed any registered documents or title documents pertaining to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:20.01.2022
the suit property, it has been held that the sufficiency of the
evidence placed by the plaintiffs is required to be considered at
trial and not in an application for rejection of the plaint.
b) The Trial Court has found that the plaintiffs have made a
categorical statement in the plaint that they are in possession of
the suit property, and that the veracity of the said contention
cannot be adjudicated in an application under Order VII Rule 11
of the CPC.
c) On the petitioners' contention regarding limitation, the Trial
Court has found that it is a mixed question of law and fact,
which must be considered after evidence.
d) The petitioner had also raised an argument regarding the
maintainability of the suit in view of the provisions of the Delhi
Land Reforms Act, 1954 ["DLR Act"]. The said plea has also
been rejected on the grounds that the plaintiffs had averred in
the plaint that the suit property falls within the limits of the
Municipal Corporation by reason whereof the DLR Act could
not apply.
5. Mr. Gyaneshwar Narayan, learned counsel for the petitioners,
submits that the impugned order suffers from a manifest error,
inasmuch as the learned Trial Court has failed to consider the
insufficiency of the documents placed by the plaintiffs in support of
their claim in respect of their title to the suit property. He points out
that, by a separate order of the same date [13.09.2021], the Trial Court
had rejected the applications of the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX
Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, finding that the plaintiffs had failed to make
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:20.01.2022
out a prima facie case in their favour. Mr. Narayan submits that the
impugned order passed by the Trial Court under Order VII Rule 11 of
the CPC is inconsistent with the order passed under Order XXXIX
Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, I do not find
any jurisdictional infirmity in the impugned order, so as to invite the
supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution. It is well settled that, for the purposes of rejection of the
plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court is duty bound to
consider the contents of the plaint, and not to examine the sufficiency
of the evidence or the defence put forth by the defendant. Several
judgments of the Supreme Court make this position clear, including
Saleem Bhai and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Others1, Popat
and Kotecha Property vs. State Bank of India Staff Association2 and
Urvashiben and Another vs. Krishnakant Manuprasad Trivedi3.
7. The Trial Court has cogently analysed the grounds taken by the
petitioners and come to a conclusion that they do not fall within the
scope of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. I do not find any jurisdictional
defect or perversity in the said order so as to attract the supervisory
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
8. Mr. Narayan's submission that the impugned order is
inconsistent with the order passed on the same date rejecting the
applications of the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the
CPC is also misplaced. The relevant standard by which the plaintiffs'
(2003) 1 SCC 557 [paragraph 9]
(2005) 7 SCC 510 [paragraphs 10-23]
(2019) 13 SCC 372 [paragraph 20]
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:20.01.2022
case is adjudged under the two provisions are entirely different. For
the purposes of an order under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the
Court must come to the conclusion that the plaint is required to be
rejected i.e., that the suit must terminate right there. In the plaintiffs'
applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, however,
the examination is as to whether a prima facie case has been
established by the plaintiffs in their favour. As in the present case, it is
quite possible that the Court would find against the plaintiffs on the
question of prima facie case and yet find that the plaint is not liable to
be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, I am not inclined to entertain the
present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, which stands
dismissed.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
JANUARY 19, 2022
'Bp'
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:20.01.2022
