Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Cannot Be Rejected by Conducting Mini-Trial on Disputed Facts: Delhi High Court

“The remedy of rejection of a plaint is a stringent one and can be invoked only when the Court conclusively determines, on a meaningful reading of the plaint alone, that no cause of action is disclosed.”— In a seminal ruling, the Delhi High Court, comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, set aside a Single Judge's order that had rejected a plaint at the threshold, reaffirming that disputed questions of fact regarding Joint Hindu Family (JHF) property cannot be adjudicated under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

The Family Dispute

The dispute centered on a property in Hari Nagar Ashram, New Delhi. The Appellant (Plaintiff) claimed the property was ancestral, purchased jointly by his grandfather and grand-uncle in the 1950s. He alleged that through a series of devolutions, family settlements, and partitions, the property became a Joint Hindu Family (JHF) asset in the hands of his father (Defendant No. 1), who acted as the Karta.

The Plaintiff challenged a Gift Deed and a Will executed by his father in favor of other family members, asserting his rights as a coparcener. The Defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, arguing the property was self-acquired by the father and thus he had absolute right of disposal. The Single Judge allowed the application and rejected the plaint, holding that the grandfather "never constituted any JHF."

The Core Legal Issue: Scope of Order VII Rule 11

The primary question before the Division Bench was whether the Single Judge could record a factual finding that "no JHF existed" at the pre-trial stage. The Appellant argued that the Single Judge had prematurely adjudicated issues requiring evidence, effectively converting a limited inquiry into a full trial.

Meaningful Reading vs. Fact-Finding

The Division Bench strongly disapproved of the Single Judge's approach. The Court clarified that under Order VII Rule 11(a), the Court is confined to the averments in the plaint. If the Plaintiff pleads the existence of a JHF, blending of assets, and joint possession, these are triable issues.

The Bench noted: "The learned Single Judge erred in returning a factual determination at the threshold stage... Such a conclusion is plainly a finding of fact."

The Court further criticized the Single Judge for calling upon the Plaintiff to file an affidavit disclosing his employment details to prove contribution to the house construction. The Bench held that assessing the "sufficiency or correctness of evidence" is impermissible at the Order VII Rule 11 stage.

The Respondents relied on the Supreme Court judgments in Chander Sen and Yudhishter, and a recent Division Bench judgment in Neeraj Bhatia. The Court distinguished these, noting that Neeraj Bhatia involved a case where no document was produced to support an oral plea of blending, whereas, in the present case, the Plaintiff had pleaded specific details of inheritance and partition. The Court reiterated the principle from Rohit Chauhan v. Surinder Singh that a coparcenary can come into existence upon the birth of a son.

The Court allowed the appeal, restored the suit to its original number, and directed the parties to appear before the Single Judge. The Bench emphasized that a plaint cannot be rejected in part, noting that the Plaintiff's prayer for injunction regarding his possession had been completely overlooked.

Date of Decision: 08.12.2025