Mr. Vijay K. Gupta and Mr. Mehul Gupta, Advocates v. PARVEEN JAIN ORS

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Abhinav Singh and Ms. Bharti Yadav, Advocates for MCD CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN PRATEEK JALAN, J. (ORAL) CM APPL. 70934/2025 (exemption)

2. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. C.R.P. 313/2025 & CM APPL. 70935/2025 (delay in filing)

3. The petitioner, who is arrayed as defendant No.1 in the suit bearing CS DJ 6856/2016 pending before the District Court, Saket, has filed this petition seeking revision of an order dated 18.07.2025. By the said order, the Trial Court has rejected the petitioner’s application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ["CPC”].

4. The only ground urged by Mr. Vijay K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the suit instituted by the respondent No.1/plaintiff was barred by limitation.

5. A copy of the plaint has been placed on the record. Signature Not Verified Signed By:PARUL VASHIST Signing Date:15.11.2025 17:52:28 C.R.P. 313/2025 Page 1 of 6

6. The relief sought by the respondent No. 1/plaintiff relates to a declaration that a sale deed dated 01.06.1998 executed by the plaintiff’s brother (defendant No.2 in the suit/respondent No.2 herein) in favour of the petitioner is null and void, a declaration that the plaintiff remains co- owner of the suit property (883/6, Ward No. VI, Main Bazar Road, Mehrauli, New Delhi), possession of the suit property, injunction, and accounts.

7. Mr. Gupta submits that the Sale Deed was admittedly executed by respondent No.2 in favour of the petitioner on 01.06.1998, whereas the suit was filed only in December 2014, well after the limitation period, which would be three years for the claim of cancellation of the Sale Deed, under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and twelve years for the claim of possession in terms of Article 65 thereof. He submits that the said Sale Deed was executed pursuant to a general power of attorney dated 17.07.1980 executed by the plaintiff in favour of the respondent No.2.

8. While considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, even on the ground of limitation, the Court is restricted to consideration of the averments in the plaint and the documents annexed therein. This principle has been laid down by the Supreme Court in several decisions, including Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali1. The following summary of the principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is relevant for the present purposes:

23.3. The underlying object of Order 7 Rule 11(a) is that if in a suit, 1 (2020) 7 SCC 366. Signature Not Verified Signed By:PARUL VASHIST Signing Date:15.11.2025 17:52:28 C.R.P. 313/2025 Page 2 of 6 no cause of action is disclosed, or the suit is barred by limitation under Rule 11(d), the court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in the suit. In such a case, it would be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation, so that further judicial time is not wasted. xxx xxx xxx 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 plaint2 read in conjunction with the documents relied upon, or whether the suit is barred by any law. xxx xxx xxx 23.8. Having regard to Order 7 Rule 14 CPC, the documents filed along with the plaint, are required to be taken into consideration for deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11(a). When a document referred to in the plaint, forms the basis of the plaint, it should be treated as a part of the plaint. 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 consideration3. 23.11. The test for exercising the power under Order 7 Rule 11 is that if the averments made in the plaint are taken in entirety, in conjunction with the documents relied upon, would the same result in a decree being passed. This test was laid down in Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I4 which reads as: “139. Whether a plaint discloses a cause of action or not is essentially a question of fact. But whether it does or does not must be found out from reading the plaint itself. For the said purpose, the averments made in the plaint in their entirety must be held to be correct. The test is as to whether if the averments made in the plaint are taken to be correct in their entirety, a decree would be passed.” xxx xxx xxx 23.13. If on a meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and without any merit, and does not disclose a right to sue, the court would be justified in exercising the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.”