Disputed Questions of Fact Regarding Property Records Cannot Justify Rejection of Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC

The Plaintiff filed a suit for possession and damages (Rs. 98,40,000/-) regarding the second floor of property S-337, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi, alleging the Defendant is in illegal occupation of the premises following the death of a company director

The Defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint, contending that he actually occupies the third floor, not the second, and that the Plaintiff has filed a parallel suit in Saket District Court against his brother where the property description was inconsistently amended

The Defendant further alleged the suit was a "counterblast" to criminal complaints he lodged against the Plaintiff

1. Whether the plaint should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC on the grounds of factual disputes regarding the specific floor occupied and the pendency of other litigation

Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which mandates the rejection of a plaint only if it fails to disclose a cause of action, is barred by law, or suffers from specific valuation/stamping defects

Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (2020) 7 SCC 366, establishing that the court must strictly adhere to the averments in the plaint and ignore the defendant’s written statement or merits at this stage

Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. v. Mahaveer Lunia (2025) and Uma Devi v. Anand Kumar (2025) to affirm that if triable issues arise, a suit cannot be summarily rejected, and the power to terminate a civil action at the threshold is a drastic measure to be used only when a suit is manifestly vexatious

The court reasoned that for the purposes of Order VII Rule 11, it is confined to the pleadings within the plaint and cannot weigh the Defendant's contentions

The Defendant's primary argument—that he occupies the third floor rather than the second—was deemed a "disputed question of fact" that can only be determined through evidence during trial

The court noted that the Defendant did not deny possession of the property entirely, only the specific floor designation

the court held that the allegations regarding the suit being a "counterblast" to criminal proceedings or the impact of the parallel Saket District Court litigation are matters to be considered at the stage of framing issues or evidence, rather than as a ground for threshold rejection

The court dismissed the Defendant’s application (I.A. 14811/2026), stating that the averments in the plaint sufficiently disclosed a cause of action to proceed to trial