Delhi High Court
Shri Arun Khosla & Ors vs Shrimati Jyotsna Bhatia on 28 August, 2025
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 20.08.2025
Judgment pronounced on: 28.08.2025
+ FAO(OS) 48/2025 & CM APPL. 23721/2025
SHRI ARUN KHOSLA & ORS. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Rajiv Bahl, Adv. with P-1
in-person.
versus
SHRIMATI JYOTSNA BHATIA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Praveen Kumar, Mr.
Sarthak Gupta, Mr. Suman Raj,
Mr. Fouzan Sah, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR
JUDGMENT
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
1. The present Appeal, under Section 10(1) of the Delhi High
Court Act, 1966, is preferred against the Judgment dated
27.02.20251, passed by the learned Single Judge in CS(OS) 361/2016,
titled “Mrs. Jyotsna Bhatia v. Mr. Arun Khosla & Ors.“. By the
Impugned Judgment, the learned Single Judge dismissed IA No.
14141/2016, application preferred by the Appellants under Order VII
1
Impugned Judgement
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA FAO(OS) 48/2025 Page 1 of 14
Signing Date:29.08.2025
13:27:08
Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19082, seeking rejection of
the plaint instituted by the Respondent.
BRIEF FACTS:
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts germane, for the
institution of the present Appeal, along with the family tree for the
sake of brevity, are as follows:-
3. Late Sh. Bhim Sen Khosla, who is the father and the common
ancestor of the parties herein, was the owner of a property bearing
House No. B-98, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi-1100483. Late Sh.
Bhim Sen Khosla passed away on 19.03.1986, leaving behind the
aforenoted Class I heirs. It is the case of the Respondent/Plaintiff
therein that her father died intestate and the properties owned by him
devolved upon his legal heirs accordingly. Thereafter, the Plaintiff, on
03.06.2015, was apprised about the fact that the subject property had
been mutated in favour of Appellant Nos. 1 and 3 (Defendant Nos. 1
2
CPC
3
Suit property
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA FAO(OS) 48/2025 Page 2 of 14
Signing Date:29.08.2025
13:27:08
and 3 before the ld. Single Judge) through information from the MCD
and upon scrutiny of certain documents.
4. It is further alleged by the Respondent that it was revealed to
her that a suit, being CS(OS) 804/1995, which was filed by Late Smt.
Laj Khosla, wherein a compromise decree was passed. It is stated that
the suit was filed without impleading the Respondent and the
compromise decree was also not brought to the knowledge of the
Respondent by the Appellant. It is stated that upon further inquiry, it
was brought to light that the father of the parties – Late Mr. Bhim Sen
Khosla, had left a registered Will dated 09.08.1984 bequeathing the
entire suit property in equal shares to Appellant Nos. l & 2.
5. The Respondent further asserts that her mother had executed
another Will dated 31.07.1991 in favour of Appellant No. 1,
purportedly bequeathing her share in the suit property. However, it is
contended that on 31.07.1991, the mother did not possess any
disposable share in the property. Moreover, in CS(OS) No. 804/1995,
she had herself entered into a compromise acknowledging a 25%
share in the property, therefore, the execution of the Will dated
31.07.1991 becomes doubtful.
6. In these circumstances, the Respondent instituted the present
suit seeking, inter alia, declaration, partition and separate possession
of the residential property and agricultural land owned by her late
father. During the proceedings, the Appellants filed IA No.
14141/2016 under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, seeking rejection of
the plaint. The learned Single Judge, however, dismissed the said
application by way of the Impugned Judgment.
7. It is pertinent to note that the Appellants herein have limited
their challenge to the judgment impugned herein to the sole question
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA FAO(OS) 48/2025 Page 3 of 14
Signing Date:29.08.2025
13:27:08
of whether this suit itself was barred by limitation or not. They have
thus not urged any of the other points raised by them in the original
application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC and the
corresponding grounds as raised in the present Appeal.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS:
8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Appellants that
the Respondent herein was aware of the registered Will dated
09.08.1984 as also the Will dated 31.07.1991, and given this aspect,
the suit as filed in 2016 and as amended on 15.03.2021 is heavily
barred by limitation. In support of the said contention, learned counsel
for the Appellants would refer to the recent judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Smt. Uma Devi & Ors. v. Sri. Anand Kumar &
Ors4.
9. Learned counsel for the Appellants would also state that there is
no discussion on the aspect of limitation in the Impugned Judgment
and on this ground alone, the Impugned Judgment needs to be set
aside.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT:
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent would state that
the learned Single Judge has rendered a reasoned judgment dealing
with all the aspects as raised in the application under Order VII Rule
11 of CPC, including the contention in respect of the plaint being
barred by limitation.
11. He would then seek to draw support from Paragraphs 8 & 9 of
the Impugned Judgment to contend that the learned Single Judge was
fully cognizant of the various issues that have been raised and also set
4
2025 INSC 4341
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA FAO(OS) 48/2025 Page 4 of 14
Signing Date:29.08.2025
13:27:08
out in Paragraph 3 of the Impugned Judgment, and resultantly, the
said issue has been duly considered and dealt with.
ANALYSIS:
12. The Court has heard learned counsel for both parties at length
and has meticulously examined the pleadings, including the plaint
along with documents, I.A. No. 14141/2016 with its reply, and the
Impugned Judgment.
13. At the outset, it is considered necessary to refer to the relevant
portions of the impugned judgment. The pertinent paragraphs are
reproduced below:-
“3. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the father of the Plaintiff – Mr.
Bhim Sen Khosla, who owned the above-mentioned properties,
passed away on 19.03.1986 leaving behind his wife Ms. Laj
Khosla, two sons – Mr. Randhir Khosla (Defendant No.2 herein) &
Mr. Arun Khosla (Defendant No.1 herein), and one daughter – Mrs.
Jyotsna Bhatia (the Plaintiff herein). It is the case of the Plaintiff
that on the death of Mr. Bhim Sen Khosla the suit properties
divulged on the legal heirs of Mr. Bhim Sen Khosla as Mr. Bhim
Sen Khosla died intestate. It is stated that at the time of the demise
of Mr. Bhim Sen Khosla, Defendant No.1 along with Defendant
No.3 were staying on the first floor of the Suit Property and
Defendant No.2 along with his wife, three daughters and mother
were staying on the ground floor. It is stated that the mother of the
Plaintiff passed away on 29.04.2000 and the Plaintiff participated
in the last rites of her mother at the suit property and after the last
rites, though the Defendants though acknowledged 1/3rd share of
the Plaintiff in the Suit Property but since Defendant No.2 was
under huge debts, partition of the Suit Property was not sought by
the parties and the same was deferred. It is stated that the Plaintiff
shifted to Delhi with her family in 2002. It is stated that since the
Plaintiff did not have any permanent place over her head, the
Plaintiff asked for demarcation of her share in the Suit Property
from Defendants No.1 & 2. It is stated that Defendant No. l sought
some time for demarcation and partition of Plaintiff’s share and
Defendant No.2 represented to the Plaintiff that Defendant No.2 is
facing acute financial distress and in order to bail out Defendant
No.2, Defendant No.1 agreed to extend financial assistance to
Defendant No.2 subject to Defendant No.2 surrendering his rights
in favour of Defendant No.1. It is stated that Defendant No.1
represented to the Plaintiff that on account of his daughter’s
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA FAO(OS) 48/2025 Page 5 of 14
Signing Date:29.08.2025
13:27:08
marriage he is not in a position to demarcate the share in the suit
property and requested the Plaintiff to accommodate him for some
more time and in lieu of this accommodation, the Defendant No.1
promised to the Plaintiff to construct the entire first floor from his
own funds and hand it over to the Plaintiff for her occupation. It is
stated that since Defendants No.1 & 2 arc brothers, the Plaintiff
relented. Defendants No.1 & 2 both agreed that till the Plaintiff is
given her separate share in the Suit Property, the Plaintiff can
continue to have access to one room on the ground floor. It is
stated that in 2003, around the marriage of the daughter of the
Defendant No.1, Defendant No.2 and his family vacated the first
floor of the suit property. It is stated that after the marriage of her
daughter, Defendant No.1 commenced construction of first floor of
the suit property. It is stated that since the house in which the
daughter of Defendant No.1 was married was being demolished for
reconstruction, the Defendant No.1 requested the Plaintiff to allow
his daughter to occupy the first floor of the house with her husband
during the construction of their house. It is stated that initially, it
was represented to the Plaintiff that they need to stay only for two
years and thereafter, the Plaintiff can move in to the Suit property.
It is stated that the Plaintiff agreed to the request of the Defendant
No.1. It is stated that the daughter and son-in-law of the Defendant
No.1 vacated the suit property at the end of 2014. It is stated that
after the first floor was vacated, in February, 2015 the Plaintiff
approached the Defendant No.1 expressing her desire to shift on
the first floor of the suit property with her family to which
Defendant No.1 said that he needs to remove his articles which are
lying on the first floor. It is stated that disputes arose between the
Plaintiff and the wife of the Defendant No.1, who told the Plaintiff
that the entire property belongs to her husband and the Plaintiff
has no share in the suit property. It is stated that on 03.06.2015
Plaintiff received information from the MCD and on scrutiny of the
documents it was revealed that the entire property has been
mutated in the name of the Defendant No.1 & 3 as owners. It is
stated that it was also revealed that a Suit, being CS(OS) 804/1995
was filed by Late Smt. Laj Khosla wherein some compromise
decree was passed. It is stated that the suit and compromise decree
were not brought to the knowledge of the Plaintiff by the
Defendants. It is stated that upon further inquiry it was brought to
light that the father of the Plaintiff – Late Mr. Bhim Sen Khosla had
left a registered Will dated 09.08.1984 bequeathing the entire suit
property in equal share to Defendants No.1 & 2. It is stated in the
plaint that her father had immense love and affection for her as she
was the only daughter and there is no reason why she would be left
out from inheritance. It is stated that it also came to the knowledge
of the Plaintiff that the Suit, being CS (OS) No.804/1995, filed by
the mother of the Plaintiff before this Court, was compromised on
25.03.1996 by abandoning the Will dated 09.08.1984 and the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA FAO(OS) 48/2025 Page 6 of 14
Signing Date:29.08.2025
13:27:08
parties to that Suit became owners of the Suit property. It is stated
that the said Suit was filed without impleading the Plaintiff as a
party and once the Will dated 09.08.1984 was not propounded, the
Plaintiff being class-I legal heir of Late Mr. Bhim Sen Khosla was
to be impleaded as a party to the suit. It is stated that the
Defendants No.1 & 2 along with the mother fraudulently obtained
a decree dated 10.04.1996 behind the back of the Plaintiff. It is
stated that it also came to light that the mother of the Plaintiff had
also executed a Will dated 31.07.1991 in favour of Defendant No.1
bequeathing her share in the Suit property in favour of Defendant
No.1. It is stated that the Will dated 31.07.1991 was executed at a
time when the mother of the Plaintiff did not have any disposable
share in the suit property and moreover, by her own conduct of
entering into a compromise in CS(OS) No.804/1995 whereby the
mother owns 25% share in the suit property and, therefore, the
execution of the Will dated 31.07.1991 becomes doubtful. The
Plaintiff has, therefore, filed the present Suit.
****
8. A perusal of the above judgment shows that the remedy under
Order 7 Rule 11 is an independent and special remedy, wherein the
court is empowered to summarily dismiss 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 under Order
VII Rule 11. The whole purpose of conferment of such powers is to
ensure that a litigation which is meaningless, and bound to prove
abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time of the Court.
****
9. A reading of the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC does
not bring out any case as to why the plaint should be rejected on
any of the grounds which are mentioned in an application under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The application is premised on the ground
that the Plaintiff has made false averments and has concealed
material facts. The Plaintiff was aware of her father having
executed a Will dated 09.08.1984 and the mother having executed
a Will dated 31.07.1991 and also the fact that her mother and two
brothers having obtained a consent decree with regard to the
partition of the suit property on 10.04.1996 and the fact that
Defendant No.2 having sold his share of the property to Defendant
No.3 vide Sale Deed dated 13.06.2003.”
14. We have examined the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Smt. Uma Devi v. Smt. Anand Kumar (supra). For ready reference,
the relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are reproduced below:-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA FAO(OS) 48/2025 Page 7 of 14
Signing Date:29.08.2025
13:27:08
“3. The defendants moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of
the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter „CPC‟), seeking return of
the plaint on the grounds that the suit was not maintainable as it
was barred by limitation as well as on other grounds. The Trial
Court allowed the application and dismissed the suit.
****
9. The defendants further argued that the plaintiffs were effectively
challenging a sale deed executed by their own aunt. Since the suit
for partition was filed without contesting the sale deed, that itself
was legally untenable. Moreover, a registered sale deed constitutes
constructive notice to the world unless it is a case of fraud,
coercion, or minority and therefore there has to be a presumption
in law that the plaintiffs had knowledge of the sale deed.
****
11. The sole argument advanced by the respondents/plaintiffs is
that the suit was only for partition, filed in the year 2023 and was
within the limitation period as the limitation will be counted from
the date of their knowledge of the sale deed. However, upon
examining the pleadings before the Trial Court and appellate
court, it is evident that the plaintiff failed to address the crucial
question of when they became aware of the registered sale deeds. If
they had prior knowledge of the sale deeds, they failed to specify
the exact date of such knowledge. Additionally, the pleadings
suggest suppression of essential facts by the plaintiffs.
****
13. Applying this settled principle of law, it can safely be assumed
that the predecessors of the plaintiffs had notice of the registered
sale deeds (executed in 1978), flowing from the partition that took
place way back in 1968, by virtue of them being registered
documents. In the lifetime of Mangalamma, these sale deeds have
not been challenged, neither has partition been sought. Thus, the
suit (filed in the year 2023) of the plaintiffs was prima facie barred
by law. The plaintiffs cannot reignite their rights after sleeping on
them for 45 years.
****
17. In our considered opinion, the Trial Court had rightly allowed
the application of the defendants/appellants under Order 7 Rule 11
CPC, holding that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was a meaningless
litigation, that it did not disclose a proper cause of action and was
barred by limitation. There were thus no justifiable reasons for the
appellate court to have remanded the matter to the Trial Court.”
15. Learned counsel for the Appellants argued that the judgment in
question contemplates a situation where, on the ground of limitation, a
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA FAO(OS) 48/2025 Page 8 of 14
Signing Date:29.08.2025
13:27:08
plaint may be dismissed on an application under Order VII Rule 11 of
the CPC. It was further contended that, since the Will is a registered
document, the Respondent would necessarily be deemed to have
constructive notice of the same, and consequently, the plaint ought to
have been rejected.
16. Learned counsel for the Appellants also contended that from a
perusal of the averments of the plaint, it was apparent that the
Respondent was well aware of the registered Wills, and for that reason
too, the learned Single Judge has erred in not rejecting the plaint.
17. We are unable to accept the contentions advanced by the
learned counsel for the Appellants. Upon a complete reading of the
plaint, we are of the view that the averments therein, do not, on the
face of it, establish that the suit is barred by limitation. A holistic
reading of the plaint does not lead to such a conclusion. At the outset,
it is necessary to reiterate the settled legal position, as consistently
affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, that rejection of a civil action
at the threshold is a drastic step, and the requirements of Order VII
Rule 11 of the CPC must be strictly construed and adhered to. Order
VII Rule 11 CPC provides as follows:-
“ORDER VII
Plaint
11. Rejection of plaint. — The plaint shall be rejected in the
following cases: —
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on
being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time
to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is
returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on
being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper
within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be
barred by any law;
(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA FAO(OS) 48/2025 Page 9 of 14
Signing Date:29.08.2025
13:27:08
(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9:
Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the
valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be
extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied
that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional
nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite
stamp-paper, as the
case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to
extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.”
18. We are of the firm view that the conditions as espoused under
Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC are not fulfilled.
19. We are further of the considered opinion that the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, particularly Paragraph 13 thereof, as
relied upon by the Appellants, is clearly distinguishable on facts and
law. It is a well-settled principle that the mere fact of registration of a
Will does not by itself confer validity upon it; a registered Will is not
conclusive proof and must still be duly proved in accordance with law.
This settled position emerges from a consistent line of precedents of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including Leela v. Muruganantham 5 ,
wherein it was categorically held as follows:-
“22……In the light of plethora of decisions including the decisions
in Moturu Nalini Kanth v. Gainedi Kaliprasad, (2024) 16 SCC
78, and in Derek A.C. Lobo v. Ulric M.A. Lobo, (2024) 15 SCC
202, this position is well settled that mere registration of a will
would not attach to it a stamp of validity and it must still be proved
in terms of the legal mandates under the provisions of Section 63 of
the Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act. It is not the
case of the appellant that the will dated 6-4-1990 is a registered
one.”
20. In the present case, unlike in Smt. Uma Devi (supra), the Wills
in question are specifically contested. In Smt. Uma Devi (supra), it
was the sale deed that was under consideration, and significantly, that
sale deed itself had not been challenged. Further, the said judgment
5
(2025) 4 SCC 289
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA FAO(OS) 48/2025 Page 10 of 14
Signing Date:29.08.2025
13:27:08
recognizes that a registered sale deed ordinarily constitutes
constructive notice unless it is a case of “fraud, coercion or minority”,
thereby leading to a presumption in law that there was knowledge of
the sale deed. However, in the present case, the plaint explicitly avers
that there was no knowledge of the Wills until 2015, and it
specifically seeks declarations regarding the registered Wills. The
pleadings make it abundantly clear that knowledge of the disputed
Wills was acquired only in 2015, and accordingly, specific reliefs
have been sought for their cancellation.
21. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the Appellants upon
portions of the written statement, particularly on the affidavits filed by
the Respondent before certain authorities, is wholly misconceived. It
is a settled proposition of law that, while considering an application
under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only the averments contained in the
plaint are to be examined, and no reference can be made to the written
statement or the material on which the defence has been premised.
22. In this regard, the learned Single Judge has correctly relied
upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Popat and
Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Assn.6, wherein the
Court has categorically reiterated this principle. The relevant
paragraphs of that decision read as follows:-
“13. Before dealing with the factual scenario, the spectrum of
Order 7 Rule 11 in the legal ambit needs to be noted.
14. In Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra [(2003) 1 SCC 557] it
was held with reference to Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code that the
relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an
application thereunder are the averments in the plaint. The trial
court can exercise the power at any stage of the suit — before
registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at
any time before the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of6
(2005) 7 SCC 510.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA FAO(OS) 48/2025 Page 11 of 14
Signing Date:29.08.2025
13:27:08
deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Order 7 Rule
11 of the Code, the averments in the plaint are the germane; the
pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be
wholly irrelevant at that stage.
15. In I.T.C. Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal [(1998) 2
SCC 70] it was held that the basic question to be decided while
dealing with an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the
Code is whether a real cause of action has been set out in the
plaint or something purely illusory has been stated with a view to
get out of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code.
16. The trial court must remember that if on a meaningful and not
formal reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious and meritless
in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, it should exercise
the power under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code taking care to see
that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. If clever drafting has
created the illusion of a cause of action, it has to be nipped in the
bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under
Order 10 of the Code. (See T. Arivandandam v. T.V.
Satyapal [(1977) 4 SCC 467].)
17. It is trite law that not any particular plea has to be considered,
and the whole plaint has to be read. As was observed by this Court
in Roop Lal Sathi v. Nachhattar Singh Gill [(1982) 3 SCC 487]
only a part of the plaint cannot be rejected and if no cause of
action is disclosed, the plaint as a whole must be rejected.
18. In Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. v. Ganesh Property [(1998) 7
SCC 184] it was observed that the averments in the plaint as a
whole have to be seen to find out whether clause (d) of Rule 11 of
Order 7 was applicable.
19. There cannot be any compartmentalisation, dissection,
segregation and inversions of the language of various paragraphs
in the plaint. If such a course is adopted it would run counter to the
cardinal canon of interpretation according to which a pleading has
to be read as a whole to ascertain its true import. It is not
permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage and to read it out of
the context in isolation. Although it is the substance and not merely
the form that has to be looked into, the pleading has to be
construed as it stands without addition or subtraction of words or
change of its apparent grammatical sense. The intention of the
party concerned is to be gathered primarily from the tenor and
terms of his pleadings taken as a whole. At the same time it should
be borne in mind that no pedantic approach should be adopted to
defeat justice on hair-splitting technicalities.
20. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles the reliefs sought for
in the suit as quoted supra have to be considered. The real object
of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code is to keep out of courts
irresponsible law suits. Therefore, Order 10 of the Code is a tool in
the hands of the courts by resorting to which and by searching
examination of the party in case the court is prima facie of the view
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA FAO(OS) 48/2025 Page 12 of 14
Signing Date:29.08.2025
13:27:08
that the suit is an abuse of the process of the court in the sense that
it is a bogus and irresponsible litigation, the jurisdiction under
Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code can be exercised.”
23. There is yet another important aspect of the matter. The
Respondent/Plaintiff has sought multiple reliefs, including, inter alia,
declaration/cancellation of the Wills. It is a well-settled principle that
a plaint cannot be rejected in part; any rejection under Order VII Rule
11 CPC must necessarily pertain to the plaint in its entirety and not in
a piecemeal manner. This position has been clarified by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Geetha v. Nanjundaswamy 7 , wherein it was
categorically held that rejection of a plaint in respect of only part of
the claim is impermissible. The Court observed as follows:-
“13. In view of the above referred principle, we have no hesitation
in holding that the High Court committed an error in rejecting the
plaint in part with respect to Schedule-A property and permitting
the Plaintiffs to prosecute the case only with respect to Schedule-B
property. This approach while considering an application under
Order VII Rule 11, CPC is impermissible. We, therefore, set aside
the judgment and order of the High Court even on this ground.”
(emphasis supplied)
24. A perusal of the Appellants’ application under Order VII Rule
11 of the CPC further reveals that reliance has been placed on
affidavits and No Objection Certificates allegedly filed before the
MCD on various occasions.
25. However, the allegations made by the Appellants with respect
to the Respondent’s alleged knowledge of the Wills are matters of
evidence which necessarily have to be established during trial. It
would not be proper for the Court to summarily oust the Respondent
at the threshold on the basis of disputed questions of fact by rejecting
the plaint.
7
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1407.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA FAO(OS) 48/2025 Page 13 of 14
Signing Date:29.08.2025
13:27:08
26. The suit is presently pending before the learned Single Judge,
where the Appellants will have ample opportunity to contest the
averments in the plaint, adduce evidence, and defend the same in
permissible ways during the course of trial.
27. It is a well settled proposition that when the issue of limitation
turns upon disputed foundational facts, such as the date of knowledge,
the existence of a continuing or recurring cause of action, or similar
factual aspects, such questions must be adjudicated upon only after
framing of issues and upon the parties leading evidence. These cannot
be conclusively determined at the outset under Order VII Rule 11(d)
of the CPC.
28. At the cost of repetition, we reiterate that the power to reject a
plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is a drastic measure, to be
exercised sparingly and only in clear cases where the plaint, on the
face of it, discloses a legal bar. Such relief certainly cannot be granted
at the threshold in the present matter, particularly on the basis of the
Appellants’ contentions.
29. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the
firm view that the present appeal is devoid of merit. Accordingly, the
appeal, along with pending applications, if any, stands dismissed.
ANIL KSHETARPAL
(JUDGE)
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR
(JUDGE)
AUGUST 28, 2025/tk/sm/va
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA FAO(OS) 48/2025 Page 14 of 14
Signing Date:29.08.2025
13:27:08
[ad_1]
Source link