A Benami objection cannot defeat a partition plaint under Order VII Rule 11 without trial evidence.

The plaintiff brought a suit concerning assets allegedly belonging to her late husband, Arun Kumar Bhutoria.

Following an order permitting amendment, she sought, among other reliefs, declarations and partition of assets said to be held through Defendant Nos. 3–34, a group of companies

Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 applied under Order VII Rule 11 and Order I Rule 10(2) CPC to reject the plaint, dismiss the suit against the corporate defendants, or delete Defendant Nos. 1–34, contending that the plaint disclosed no cause of action, the suit was barred by Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013 and the Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, and the parties were improperly joined

The plaintiff and Defendant No. 36 opposed the application.

The Court confined its consideration of rejection to the plaint’s averments and the applicable law

Whether the plaint, read as a whole, disclosed a cause of action or showed that the suit was barred by Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013 or the Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, warranting rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC

Whether Defendant Nos. 1–34 should be struck out or the suit dismissed against them for misjoinder or non-joinder of parties

Whether Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 should be permitted to file their written statement and have the delay condoned

Order VII Rule 11 CPC permits rejection of a plaint only on the grounds specified in that rule, including where the plaint itself discloses no cause of action or shows that the suit is barred by law; the inquiry is confined to the plaint and does not determine disputed facts

Under Section 9 CPC, civil courts have jurisdiction over suits of a civil nature unless cognizance is expressly or impliedly barred.

Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013 bars civil-court jurisdiction only over matters that the NCLT or NCLAT is empowered to determine

Section 2(9)(A)(b) of the Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 contains exceptions concerning property held by a Karta or HUF for the benefit of family members from known HUF sources; whether an exception applies may require trial where it cannot be ruled out on the pleadings alone [pp. 29–31, discussing Santosh Kumar Agarwalla v. Sajjan Kumar Agarwalla, FMAT No. 543 of 2023].

Order I Rule 10(2) CPC empowers the court to add or strike parties at any stage of the proceedings

The amended plaint claimed that the disputed properties were acquired from the deceased’s funds and sought their declaration and partition among his heirs.

On that pleading, the Court held that the applicants had not established at the threshold that a civil partition suit was barred by Section 430; the dispute, as pleaded, was one of declaration and partition within the civil court’s jurisdiction

The asserted HUF/Karta basis for acquisition also meant that the Benami Act bar could not be conclusively applied without evidence

The applicants’ detailed objection concerning necessary parties had not been raised in their application and could be addressed through pleadings and issues; in any event, Order I Rule 10(2) permits later correction of the array of parties.

The Court therefore declined to reject the plaint or strike out the defendants at this stage.

It separately allowed the request to file a written statement, subject to costs.

It allowed prayer (e), condoning the delay in filing the written statement, subject to costs of ₹1,500: ₹1,200 payable to the plaintiff and ₹300 to the Legal Aid and Advice Society, West Bengal.

The written statement was directed to be filed within three weeks after vacation and costs paid within one week after vacation

The application was disposed of, and the suit was directed to be placed before the Regular Bench having determination