[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Archana Chopra vs Anuj Guglani And Ors on 9 March, 2026
$~38
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 09.03.2026
+ FAO(OS) 27/2026&CM APPL. 13876/2026
ARCHANA CHOPRA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Gyanendra Kumar, Sr.
Adv. with Mr. Soumya
Dasgupta, Ms. Sugandh
Virmani & Ms. Shambavi
Dwivedi, Advs.
versus
ANUJ GUGLANI AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjiv Bahl, Mr. Eklavya
Bahl & Mr. Apoorva Bahl,
Advs./R1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK CHAUDHARY
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR
JUDGMENT
CM APPL. 13877/2026(Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
FAO(OS) 27/2026
3. The present appeal has been filed under Section 10(1) of the
Delhi High Court Act, 1966, assailing the Judgment and Order dated
15.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A. NO. 8202 of
2025 in C.S. (OS) No. 3398 of 2015, whereby, the application filed by
the appellant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code,
1908 (hereinafter referred to as, „CPC‟), seeking rejection of the plaint
was dismissed.
4. Briefly stated, the suit out of which the present appeal arises
concerns the property bearing No. F-4/16, Model Town, Delhi ("the
suit property").As pleaded in the plaint, the suit property was
purchased in the year 1957 allegedly out of joint family funds
arranged by Dr. Chuni Lal Guglani and Smt. Ganesh Devi Guglani in
the name of their son H.C. Guglani/Respondent No. 2. It is averred
that the said property formed part of the family estate and was
subsequently treated as property of a Hindu Undivided Family
constituted in the name of "H.C. Guglani HUF". It is further pleaded
that Dr. Chuni Lal Guglani, Smt. Ganesh Devi Guglani and their
children were members of the said HUF, with Respondent No. 2
acting as its Karta.
5. The Appellant claims to be a coparcener on the said HUF by
birth and asserts that the suit property remained joint family property
and was never partitioned. It is alleged that in 2014, Respondent No. 2
demolished the existing structure on the suit property and initiated
construction in collaboration with other defendants, while
simultaneously denying the existence of any HUF asserting exclusive
ownership.
6. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Respondent No. 1/plaintiff
instituted the suit seeking partition of the suit property, rendition of
accounts and permanent injunction, asserting his coparcenary rights in
the alleged HUF property.
7. During the pendency of the suit, after the issues had been
framed and the trial had commenced, and when the matter was at the
stage of Plaintiff‟s evidence, the Appellant preferred an application
under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) seeking rejection of the plaint,
which was dismissed vide the Impugned Judgment and Order dated
15.01.2026. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has preferred the present
appeal.
8. By way of the Impugned Judgment and Order, the learned
Single Judge, while dismissing the application filed by the Appellant,
held that a meaningful reading of the plaint discloses a cause of action
and raises triable issues, including the nature and character of the suit
property, the alleged constitution of the H.C. Guglani HUF, and the
plaintiff‟s entitlement to seek partition and other reliefs, which would
require adjudication upon evidence being led. It was further found that
issues had already been framed by the Order dated 11.09.2018 and the
suit progressed to the stage of plaintiff‟s evidence.
9. The Impugned Judgment and Order was primarily opposed on
three grounds. First, it is contended that even if the averments made
by the Respondent No. 1/plaintiff in the plaint are assumed to be
correct, the suit is not maintainable as no HUF exists in view of the
surviving legal heirs. Secondly, it is urged that the plaint does not
contain proper and complete particulars regarding the suit property
and the alleged funds, and therefore fails to disclose the material facts
necessary to constitute a cause of action, as mandatorily required
under Order VI Rule 4 of the CPC. Lastly, it is argued that the suit is
barred by limitation as there has been no joint, constructive or
symbolic possession of the suit property since 1990, whereas the
present suit for partition has been instituted only in the year 2015.
Accordingly, it is urged that the plaint is liable to be rejected under
Order VII Rule 11 (a) &(d) of the CPC. To buttress his arguments,
reliance has been placed on Uttam v. Saubhag Singh& Ors,(2016) 4
SCC 68 and Sagar Gambhir v. Shri Sukhdev Singh, 2017 SCC
OnLine Del 7305.
10. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused
the material placed on record.
11. At the outset, it is relevant to note that at the time of the first
hearing of the suit on 30.11.2015, when the application filed under the
provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC was taken up,
learned counsel appearing for the defendants, including the present
Appellant, made a statement before the learned Single Judge that,
without prejudice, till the next date of hearing, the defendants shall not
dispose of the suit property. The said statement was recorded by the
Court and operated as an undertaking on behalf of the defendants.
12. Subsequently, by order dated 24.01.2018, it was directed that
the said statement shall continue till the disposal of the suit, thereby
continuing the undertaking throughout the pendency of the
proceedings as an interim protection.
13. In view of the said undertaking, the learned Single Judge did
not require the Respondent No. 1/plaintiff, at that stage, to lead
evidence to establish a prima facie case for grant of interim protection.
14. In these circumstances, once the Appellant had given an
undertaking restraining alienation of the suit property, thereby
obviating the need for the Respondent No. 1/plaintiff to establish a
prima facie case at that stage, the Appellant now should not be
permitted to contend that the plaint ought to be rejected at the
threshold. In any event, the questions sought to be raised by the
Appellant pertain to disputed issues which cannot be conclusively
determined without a full-fledged trial.
15. In any event, the scope of examination under Order VII Rule 11
of the CPC is well settled.At the stage of considering an application
under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court is required to examine
only the averments contained in the plaint and not the defence raised
by the defendants.
16. The Supreme Court has consistently reiterated the aforesaid
principle in Popat and Kotecha Property vs. State Bank of India
Staff Association, (2005) 7 SCC 510, and Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai
Kalyanji Bhanusali, (2020) 7 SCC 366.
17. At the same time, it has been held in T. Arivandandam vs. T.V.
Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467, the power to reject a plaint is a drastic
power, which must be exercised only where the plaint, on a
meaningful reading, not a formal, does not disclose a clear right to sue
and is manifestly vexatious and meritless.
18. Tested on the aforesaid parameters, the plaint in the present
case clearly discloses a cause of action. The plaintiff has specifically
pleaded that the suit property was acquired out of joint family funds,
that it was treated as property of the HUF, and that no partition has
taken place. The plaint further pleads that Respondent No.2 has
asserted exclusive ownership and undertaken construction over the
property, thereby giving rise to the cause of action for the reliefs
sought.
19. The first contention advanced by the appellant that no HUF
exists and that the suit is therefore not maintainable is essentially a
defence to the case set out in the plaint. In the present case, the plaint
avers that on 26.03.1957 suit property was purchased in the name of
H.C. Guglani, allegedly from joint family funds arranged by Dr.
Chuni Lal Guglani and Smt. Ganesh Devi Guglani, and that though
standing in the name of H.C. Guglani, the property was held by him in
a fiduciary capacity for the joint family. It is further pleaded that a
HUF styled "H.C. Guglani HUF" was constituted with H.C. Guglani
as it Karta.
20. In such circumstances, questions as to whether an HUF was
created, whether any objection was raised by family members to such
creation, whether the suit property forms part of the HUF, and whether
such HUF existed or continued to subsist thereafter, are matters
requiring examination of pleadings and evidence. These are mixed
questions of fact and law and cannot be adjudicated at the threshold
while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC,
which must be decided solely on the averments contained in the plaint.
Moreover, the reliance placed by the appellant on Uttam v. Saubhag
Singh & Ors., (2016) 4 SCC 68 does not advance the appellant‟s case
at this stage, as the applicability of the said principle would
necessarily depend upon factual determination regarding the nature of
the property and the existence or otherwise of a coparcenary.
21. The second contention of the appellant that the plaint does not
contain proper particulars as required under Order VI Rule 4 CPC and
therefore fails to disclose a cause of action is equally misconceived.
The requirement of pleading material facts does not mandate that the
plaint must contain exhaustive evidentiary details. The plaint must
merely disclose the foundational facts constituting the cause of action.
A plain reading of the plaint demonstrates that the plaintiff has
pleaded the origin of the alleged joint family property, the manner in
which the property is claimed to have been treated as HUF property,
the plaintiff‟s status as a coparcener, and the alleged acts of the
defendants which have led to the present dispute. These averments
sufficiently disclose the cause of action for the reliefs sought. It is well
settled that where a plaint discloses a cause of action and raises triable
issues, rejection of the plaint at the threshold is impermissible, as
reiterated in Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. v. Mahaveer Lunia & Ors.,
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1208. In this view of the matter, the reliance
placed by the appellant on Sagar Gambhir v. Shri Sukhdev Singh,
2017 SCC OnLine Del 7305, is misplaced and does not justify
rejection of the plaint at the threshold.
22. Lastly, the plea of limitation raised by the Appellant also does
not merit acceptance at this stage. It is well settled that for the
purposes of Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, a plaint can be rejected on the
ground of limitation only where the bar of limitation is apparent on the
face of the plaint itself. In the present case, the plaint contains specific
averments that the suit property remained joint family property and
that no partition had ever taken place. It is further pleaded that the
dispute crystallised when Respondent No.2 allegedly demolished the
existing structure on the suit property and asserted exclusive
ownership in the year 2014, following which the present suit came to
be instituted in 2015. Whether these assertions are ultimately proved
is a matter of trial; however, it cannot be said at this stage that the suit
is ex facie barred by limitation. The Supreme Court in Dahiben v.
Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali, (2020) 7 SCC 366 has reiterated
that the power under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC can be exercised only
where the bar of limitation is evident from the plaint itself and does
not require a detailed enquiry into disputed facts.
23. Therefore, the submissions now advanced before us essentially
involve mixed questions of fact and law, which necessarily require
adjudication upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence. Such issues
are required to be examined by the learned Single Judge at the stage of
trial and cannot be pre-emptively determined in proceedings arising
out of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
24. We also find merit in the observation of the learned Single
Judge that issues in the suit had already been framed by order dated
11.09.2018 and the suit has progressed to the stage of plaintiff‟s
evidence. While the stage of the proceedings by itself may not be
determinative of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the fact
that the suit has proceeded to trial underscores that the controversy
between the parties involves disputed questions of fact which are
required to be adjudicated upon evidence being led.
25. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered
opinion that the learned Single Judge rightly held that the plaint
discloses a cause of action and raises triable issues which cannot be
adjudicated at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. We find no
infirmity, illegality or perversity in the Impugned Judgment and Order
dated 15.01.2026 warranting interference in the present appeal.
26. The present appeal is, accordingly, dismissed, along with all
pending applications, if any. There shall be no order as to costs.
(VIVEK CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
(RENU BHATNAGAR)
JUDGE
MARCH 9, 2026
pr/kz/nc/kp/tr
