High Court of Delhi Upholds Suit for Injunction, Rejects Plea to Dismiss Under Order VII Rule 11
In a significant ruling, the High Court of Delhi, in a case marked CS(OS) 690/2022, upheld the maintainability of a civil suit for permanent injunction, thereby rejecting the defendants’ plea to dismiss the case under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The decision was delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri.
The Court, while addressing the core issue of whether a suit for injunction could be maintained without seeking a declaration of title, emphasized that the scope of power under Order VII Rule 11 should be understood within the context of the averments made in the plaint. The judgment underscored the significance of “considering the necessary averments in the plaint, disclosing the cause of action and considering the averments and allegations in the entire plaint” and clarified that a cause of action is a bundle of facts where all events must be pleaded.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri cited the Supreme Court’s perspective on the matter, stating, “It is well settled that in all cases of preliminary objection, the test is to see whether any of the reliefs prayed for could be granted to the appellant if the averments made in the petition are proved to be true.”
In this case, the plaintiff had relied on ownership documents executed in favor of Late Dr. Pushpa Khanna for a suit property. The defendants had raised multiple objections, including the assertion that the suit was artfully drafted to create an illusion of a cause of action. However, the Court found that the suit was not manifestly vexatious and meritless and thereby rejected the application for the rejection of the plaint.
The Court also addressed the contention regarding the applicability of the Suraj Lamps decision, which restricts claims to ownership based on unregistered and insufficiently stamped documents. Justice Ohri clarified that the Suraj Lamps decision does not render such transactions illegal per se and affirmed that genuine transactions were recognizable in law, including through the doctrine of part performance under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.
Date of Decision: 14.08.2023
VISHNU KHANNA VS AVINASH KAPOOR & ORS.
