Mr. Kunal Kalra, Advocate with Mr. Shekhar Gupta, Law Officer v. CAPT. A.S. BHARDWAJ ORS

Judgment

1. The captioned revision petition is directed against a judgement of the Trial Court dated 16.01.2024 in CS DJ 578595/2016, by which an application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [“CPC”] was dismissed.

2. The suit has been filed by respondent No. 1 seeking cancellation of

a lease deed dated 30.03.1999, executed by respondent No. 3 (defendant No. 3 therein) in favour of the petitioner (defendant No. 1 therein) in respect of a plot measuring 980 sq. yds. at Khasra No. 199, Village Bawana, District North-West, Delhi – 110039, and for a decree of Signature Not Verified Signed By:PARUL VASHIST Signing Date:15.11.2025 18:14:57 C.R.P. 108/2024 possession of the suit property, as well as mesne profits.

3. While issuing notice in this revision petition, this Court passed an order dated 18.03.2024, grating a stay on the proceedings before the Trial Court. CM APPL. 70912/2025 has been filed by respondent No. 1 (plaintiff in the suit) seeking vacation of the said order. However, in the course of hearing, it appears to me that the revision petition can be disposed of at this stage. The revision petition is, therefore, taken up for hearing, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

4. The principal ground upon which the petitioner sought rejection of the plaint was that respondent No. 1 is one of two co-owners of the suit property comprising 980 sq. yds., and has filed the suit without his joint owner being party to the ejectment.

5. Mr. Kunal Kalra, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in the plaint, respondent No. 1 traces his title to 50% of the plot of 980 sq. yds. from mediated settlements dated 10.02.2009 and 26.03.2010, arrived at in litigation between him and his brother and sister-in-law, who are respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein (defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in the suit). According to Mr. Kalra, the settlement provided that a half share of the property would be transferred by respondent No. 3 to respondent No. 1 by way of a gift deed. The gift deed was, in fact, executed prior to the second mediation settlement on 08.03.2010, but was registered thereafter, on

31.03.2010. Mr. Kalra points out that, by virtue of the gift deed, respondent No. 3 gifted to respondent No. 1, 50% of the beneficial interest in the plot of 980 sq. yds. He submits that there was no physical partition of the original plot of 980 sq. yds., which would vest a distinct area of 490 sq. yds. in respondent No. 1 as sole owner. In the absence of Signature Not Verified Signed By:PARUL VASHIST Signing Date:15.11.2025 18:14:57 C.R.P. 108/2024 such a partition, Mr. Kalra submits that respondent No. 1 cannot maintain a suit for eviction, without the co-owner joining in the claim. In this connection, Mr. Kalra relies upon the judgment of this Court in Navin Chander Anand v. Union Bank of India & Ors1.

6. Mr. R.K. Saini, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, however, submits that the contentions of the petitioner herein are matters to be examined at the trial of the suit, and are not susceptible to proceedings under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. He submits that the case of respondent No. 1, as set out in the plaint and the documents annexed thereto, clearly establish that the suit property was defined in the plaint as a specified area of 490 sq. yds.

7. Before adverting to the facts of the case, the principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC may be reiterated. It is settled law that an application for rejection of plaint can be adjudicated only on the basis of the averments in the plaint and the documents relied upon by the plaintiff. The defences asserted by the defendants in the suit, as well as the contents of the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, have to be excluded from consideration at this stage. This principle has been laid down by the Supreme Court in a including Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji catena of decisions, Bhanusali2, and Indian Evangelical Lutheran Church Trust Association v. Sri Bala & Co.3. In Dahiben, the Court observed as follows: “23.2. The remedy under Order 7 Rule 11 is an independent and special remedy, wherein the court is empowered to summarily dismiss 1 (2018) 253 DLT 224. 2 (2020) 7 SCC 366 [hereinafter, “Dahiben”]. 3 2025 SCC OnLine SC 48. Signature Not Verified Signed By:PARUL VASHIST Signing Date:15.11.2025 18:14:57 C.R.P. 108/2024 a suit at the threshold, without proceeding to record evidence, and conducting a trial, on the basis of the evidence adduced, if it is satisfied that the action should be terminated on any of the grounds contained in this provision.

23.5. The power conferred on the court to terminate a civil action is, however, a drastic one, and the conditions enumerated in Order 7 Rule 11 are required to be strictly adhered to.

23.6. Under Order 7 Rule 11, a duty is cast on the court to determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action by scrutinising the averments in the plaint4, read in conjunction with the documents relied upon, or whether the suit is barred by any law.

23.9. In exercise of power under this provision, the court would determine if the assertions made in the plaint are contrary to statutory law, or judicial dicta, for deciding whether a case for rejecting the plaint at the threshold is made out.

23.10. At this stage, the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement and application for rejection of the plaint on the merits, would be irrelevant, and cannot be adverted to, or taken into consideration5.”6

8. Applying these principles to the facts of the present case, reference must first be made to the plaint itself. In the plaint, respondent No. 1 has averred as follows: “1. That the plaintiff is the owner of one half of the land/ Plot measuring about 980 Sq. Yds ( called the suit property herein after ) falling in Khasra No. 199 in Village BAWANA ,District North-West, Delhi 110039 shown in Red and marked A in the Site Plan annexed and bounded by:- North- Gali 2.35 MT wide South - Plot of defendant no.2 East - Road 45 MT Wide West- House of Sh Ramkishan & Sh Chiranji and Sh Chandgi Ram