Delhi High Court Dismisses Application to Reject Plaint in Property Dispute

Court finds triable issues in the plea, allowing the case to proceed, despite objections raised under Specific Relief Act and Civil Procedure Code

In a significant development, the Delhi High Court has dismissed an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, seeking the rejection of a plaint in the case of Dr. Saroj Bahl v. Smt. Sushma Batra and Others. The case revolves around a contentious property dispute where the plaintiff, Dr. Saroj Bahl, claims co-ownership and seeks declaratory reliefs along with an injunction regarding a property in Model Town, Delhi.

Presiding over the matter, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav ruled that the grounds presented for rejection of the plaint did not meet the necessary threshold at this stage. The defendant no. 2 had contended that the suit was barred under several provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and that it involved issues of limitation, non-joinder of necessary parties, and inadequate court fees.

The court observed that the plaintiff had sought consequential reliefs in addition to the declaration, thereby negating the applicability of the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. The plaintiff claimed to be in joint possession of the property, which the court found to be a sufficient basis to challenge the Release Deed cited by the defendants.

On the issue of the Release Deed dated 23.10.1982, the plaintiff argued that the document did not bear her signature and was forged. The court referred to the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh v. Randhir Singh, which distinguishes between cancellation by executors and declaratory relief by non-executants. Thus, the plaintiff's approach was deemed appropriate.

The matter of limitation was also addressed, with the court noting that the determination of the date of knowledge, as claimed by the plaintiff, required evidence and constituted a triable issue. Similarly, the applicability of Section 41(j) of the Specific Relief Act, concerning the plaintiff's personal interest in the subject matter, was considered a matter requiring further examination.

Lastly, the court found that the non-joinder of Mr. Chaman Kumar Mehra did not constitute an inherent defect, as no relief was sought against him, and this issue could be resolved during the trial.

In conclusion, the application for rejection of the plaint was dismissed, allowing the case to proceed to trial. The court has scheduled the next hearing for February 24, 2026, where it will be taken up alongside related cases.

Bottom Line:

Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint dismissed - Plaintiff's relief sought for declaration and injunction found to be maintainable - Issues of limitation, non-joinder of parties, and applicability of Section 41J of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 deemed triable and not appropriate for rejection at this stage.

Statutory provision(s):

• - Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908
• - Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963
• - Section 41(j) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963
• - Limitation Act, 1963
• - Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Dr. Saroj Bahl v. Smt. Sushma Batra, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2821482