The scope of application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC is limited only to the extent whether in terms of averments made in the plaint and the documents filed along with the plaint, the suit is maintainable or not : Delhi High Court
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 in this provision. This was held in the judgment passed by a single bench judge comprising HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL, in the matter PRAVESH DHAWAN & ORS V. JATIN DHAWAN ( CM(M) 556/2021), dealt with an issue where the petitioner filed against the order dated 28th July, 2020 passed by the learned District Judge, New Delhi whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908 had been dismissed.
Plaintiff in the suit was that there was a family settlement dated 28th January, 2012 that was executed between the parties to deal with the various properties as mentioned therein and that the petitioners/defendants did not abide by the terms of the said family settlement, which resulted in the respondent/plaintiff filing the suit from which the present petition arises. The following reliefs were sought in suit, (i) Declaration of ownership rights in terms of the aforesaid family settlement; (ii). declaration that the gift deeds 2009 executed by the petitioner in favour of petitioners No. 2 and 3 are null and void; and (iii) Injunction against petitioners from creating third party interest in respect of the suit property.
It is submitted that the Trial Court has misapplied the provisions of law to the facts of the present case and hence, the order of the Trial Court is erroneous and should be set aside. Attention of the Court has been drawn to the terms of the family settlement to contend that the said document indeed creates rights and interest in the property and therefore, is required to be compulsorily registered. Since the suit is based on this unregistered document, the suit was not maintainable. It is further contended that the present suit was barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code as the reliefs sought in the said suit should have been claimed in the earlier injunction suit filed on behalf of the plaintiff No. 1 against the petitioners.
After hearing both the parties The hon’ble Delhi High court dismissed the petition and held all the contentions raised by the petitioners have been duly considered in the impugned order along with the detailed reasoning in support thereof. The Trial Court has rightly held that the issues raised by the petitioners have to be considered in a trial. Reliance was placed on The Hon’ble Supreme Court’s recent judgment of Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyaniji Bhanusali (Gajra) 2020 (7) SCC 366.