Plaint cannot be rejected piecemeal under Order VII Rule 11 if any part discloses cause of action.

The Plaintiffs, legal heirs of Late Smt. Heera Devi (who died intestate on 30.12.2016), filed a suit for partition and declaration.

They challenged a Sale Deed dated 19.07.2010 executed by Defendant No. 2 (as attorney) in favor of his wife, Defendant No. 1, alleging fraud, coercion, and violation of an interim injunction from a previous suit, CS(OS) No. 333/2009.

Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed I.A. 34050/2024 under Order VII Rule 11 and Order VI Rule 16 of the CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the challenge to the Sale Deed was ex-facie barred by limitation.

The Defendants also sought the recall of an order dated 09.09.2020 which closed their right to file a written statement.

1. Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC on the ground of being barred by limitation.

2. Whether the pleadings regarding the Sale Deed and Powers of Attorney should be struck out under Order VI Rule 16 as unnecessary or frivolous.

3. Whether an application under Section 151 of the CPC is maintainable to recall a Joint Registrar’s order closing the right to file a written statement.

Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC mandates the rejection of a plaint where the suit appears from the statements in the plaint to be barred by any law.

In Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Assn., it was held that only averments in the plaint are germane for determination under Order VII Rule 11, and a plaint cannot be rejected in a piecemeal manner.

Order VI Rule 16 of the CPC permits the court to strike out any matter in a pleading that is scandalous, frivolous, or an abuse of the process of the court.

Under the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, an appeal is the proper remedy against a Joint Registrar’s order, precluding the invocation of inherent powers under Section 151 CPC when a specific remedy exists.

The court must examine the plaint as a whole without considering the defense's written statement or disputed facts while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11.

A wholesale rejection of the plaint is impermissible because the Plaintiffs sought partition of multiple properties, at least one of which was not covered by the contested Sale Deed, making the reliefs not completely severable.

Questions regarding the validity of the Sale Deed, the Plaintiffs' prior knowledge, and the bar of limitation are mixed questions of law and fact requiring evidence.

The challenged pleadings form the foundation of the cause of action and cannot be deemed frivolous under Order VI Rule 16 simply because the Defendants dispute their accuracy.

The application to recall the order closing the written statement was non-maintainable because the Defendants bypassed the specific appellate remedy provided in the Original Side Rules.

The prayer to strike out pleadings was denied as they were essential to the Plaintiffs' claims.

I.A. 33622/2024 was disposed of as non-maintainable, with liberty granted to the Defendants to pursue the appropriate legal remedy of an appeal under the Original Side Rules.