The High Court of Delhi has dismissed a petition challenging a trial court verdict in a case related to possession of property on the grounds that issues of a case cannot be dealt with at the preliminary stage in a suit.
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed that the dispute of the petitioners with regard to the reliefs sought in the alternative could very well be decided during the trial and not deciding the same in an application for rejection of the complaint did not make the impugned order illegal.
Dismissing the plea filed by one Monika Singh under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the High Court noted that the merits of the case itself need not be entered into at the stage of rejection of the plaintiff. Besides, issues such as appropriate relief and evidence annexed with the complaint could not be dealt at a preliminary stage in a suit, it added.
It further noted that there was no error of jurisdiction or other error, which could invite the intervention of this Court while exercising its revisional powers in the order passed by Additional District Judge Rajesh Kumar of Karkardooma Courts, Delhi on September 20, 2022.
Justice Singh said that the Trial Court has neither acted illegally in the exercise of its jurisdiction nor has there been any material irregularity in the verdict. Therefore, the petition challenging the trial court verdict stands dismissed, he added.
Appearing for the petitioners, Advocates Kunal Khanna and Sonia Dhariwal contended that the respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of possession and damages bearing suit no. 2674/2016 under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 on June 18, 2008 before the ADJ03, East Karkardooma Court, Delhi, pertaining to the plot/property measuring 1200 square yards forming part of khasra no. 389/26311/2 situated in village Chilla Saronda Banger, Delhi bearing no. B-1179 (new), old no. B-335, New Ashok Nagar, Delhi- 110096.
As per the plea, the respondent was seeking reliefs which were barred by law. On one hand, the respondent was seeking relief for recovery of possession of a property under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, wherein, the reliefs sought were limited to the question whether the plaintiff who was formerly in possession, was dispossessed subsequently without his consent.
On the other hand, a similar relief was being sought on the basis of title of the Suit Property as well. The same was in complete contravention with the ingredients of Section 6 of the Act. Hence, in such a Suit, the Court cannot try the question of title and similarly, a claim for damages also cannot be clubbed or combined with a relief under Section 6 of the Act, added the petition.
It alleged that the Trial Court wrongly adjudicated on the application filed by the petitioners as it failed to consider that while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court has to primarily look into the complaint only and by a plain and simple reading of the complaint filed by the respondent, it is evident that the respondent is seeking two alternate reliefs in a single Suit.
Advocate Gagan Gandhi, appearing for the respondent, submitted that the present petition has been filed with the sole purpose of harassing the respondent. The present petition was nothing but an abuse of the process of law.
He alleged that the petitioners, since the advent of the trial, have been trying to delay the proceedings as it was the third application for rejection of the plaint filed by the petitioners and consequently, all of such applications were dismissed.
As per Gandhi, the Trial Court has delved into the merits of the application filed by the petitioners and conclusively held that the grounds raised by the petitioners for the dismissal of the Suit cannot be dealt with, in an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, as the same go into the merits of the Suit and require adducing of evidence. In addition, the Suit is at the stage of evidence and raising such grounds is frivolous in nature, hence, violating the process of law.
He submitted that the Trial Court has correctly dismissed the application filed by the petitioners and this revision petition does not fall within the ambit of Section 115 of the CPC. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court has not committed any illegality by irregular exercise or non-exercise of its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order and the same is not erroneous in law.
Hence, in view of the foregoing submissions, the Counsel for the respondent sought dismissal of the revision petition and upholding of the impugned order.
Advocates Akshay Malik and Sonakshi Chaturvedi also appeared for the respondent.
(Case title: Monika Singh and Anr vs Sudha Prasad)