Delhi High Court – Orders
Shonila Jindal vs Manish Goel & Anr on 17 July, 2026
Author: Subramonium Prasad
Bench: Subramonium Prasad
$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 740/2023
SHONILA JINDAL .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Ravi Gupta (Senior Advocate),
Mr. Mehul Parti, Mr. Ashwani
Malhotra, Ms. Zoya Junaid, Ms.
Muskaan Mehta, Advs.
versus
MANISH GOEL & ANR. .....Defendants
Through: Mr. Pulkit Aggarwal, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
ORDER
% 17.07.2026
I.A. 3165/2024
1. The present Application has been filed by Defendant No. 2 under
Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, seeking rejection of the Plaint.
2. The present Suit has been filed by the Plaintiff seeking declaration
that the Gift Deed dated 25.08.2022 is void, illegal and non-est. The Plaintiff
therefore, also seeks cancellation of the said Gift Deed. The Plaintiff also
seeks a permanent injunction in respect of the Suit Property bearing No.
252, Dayanand Vihar, New Delhi.
3. Before dwelling into the facts of the case, it is pertinent to mention
that Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 are siblings. Plaintiff is the daughter of
Late Shri Satish Chandra Gupta and Defendant No. 2; and Defendant No. 1
is the son of Late Shri Satish Chandra Gupta and Defendant No. 2.
4. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the Suit Property was acquired from
CS(OS) 740/2023 Page 1 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/07/2026 at 21:47:09
the income of the family businesses run by Late Shri Satish Chandra Gupta
for the benefit of the joint family. It is stated that owing to certain family
disputes, the family entered into a Deed of Mutual Settlement and
Understanding dated 24.01.2011, under which the Suit Property was allotted
to the group comprising Late Shri Satish Chandra Gupta, Defendant No. 2,
and the Plaintiff, with the intention that it would ultimately devolve upon the
Plaintiff after the lifetime of her parents. It is stated that in furtherance of the
settlement, Late Shri Satish Chandra Gupta executed a Will dated
09.07.2013 bequeathing the Suit Property to Defendant No. 2, who, in turn,
executed a Will dated 09.06.2021 and a General Power of Attorney in
favour of the Plaintiff. The grievance of the Plaintiff is that, in breach of the
Family Settlement, Defendant No. 2 executed a Gift Deed dated 25.08.2022
in favour of Defendant No. 1, purportedly transferring the Suit Property to
Defendant No.1. Plaintiff has, therefore, approached this Court by filing the
present Suit challenging the said Gift Deed and seeking consequential
reliefs.
5. The present application has been filed by Defendant No. 2 under
Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, seeking rejection of the Plaint on the ground that the Suit does not
disclose any cause of action and is false, frivolous, and an abuse of the
process of law.
6. Learned Counsel appearing for Defendant No. 2 contends that no
relief has been claimed against Defendant No. 2 and, therefore, the Suit is
bad for misjoinder of parties. He contends that Late Shri Satish Chandra
Gupta vide his registered Will dated 09.07.2013, bequeathed the Suit
Property absolutely in favour of Defendant No. 2, without any reference to
CS(OS) 740/2023 Page 2 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/07/2026 at 21:47:09
the alleged Family Settlement dated 24.01.2011, which is stated to be
unsigned by all parties. He further states that the said Family Settlement was
never acted upon.
7. It stated that upon the demise of Late Shri Satish Chandra Gupta on
25.01.2016, Defendant No.2 became the absolute owner of the Suit Property
and thereafter, she validly executed the registered Gift Deed dated
25.08.2022 in favour of her son, Defendant No.1, of her own free will.
Learned Counsel for Defendant No.2 has further disputed the genuineness of
the alleged Will dated 09.06.2021 and General Power of Attorney relied
upon by the Plaintiff. Learned counsel appearing for Defendant No. 2
contends that Defendant No. 2, to the best of her memory and knowledge,
had neither executed the Will dated 09.06.2021 nor the alleged General
Power of Attorney in favour of the Plaintiff. He, therefore, submits that the
said documents are false and fabricated and that Defendant No. 2 came to
know of their existence only upon receipt of notice in the present Suit.
8. Learned counsel further submits that the said documents have since
been cancelled by Defendant No. 2, and the factum of such cancellation was
communicated to the Plaintiff as well as the concerned banks vide letter
dated 11.12.2023. It is further contended that, in any event, the alleged Will
dated 09.06.2021 has not become operative during the lifetime of Defendant
No. 2 and, therefore, does not confer any right, title or interest upon the
Plaintiff. He, therefore, contends that the Plaintiff has no locus standi to
maintain the present Suit, and Defendant No. 2, being alive, remains fully
competent to deal with and dispose of her movable and immovable
properties in accordance with her wishes. On these grounds, Defendant No.
2 prays for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC with costs.
CS(OS) 740/2023 Page 3 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/07/2026 at 21:47:09
9. Per contra, Learned counsel for the Plaintiff submits that the present
application is misconceived and liable to be dismissed as it merely reiterates
the defences taken by Defendant No. 2 in her written statement, whereas, for
deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court is required
to examine only the averments contained in the plaint and not the defence
raised by the defendants.
10. It is further submitted that the application raises disputed questions of
fact regarding title, the Family Settlement Deed, the validity of the Gift
Deed and the Wills, which cannot be adjudicated at the threshold and can
only be determined after the parties lead evidence at trial.
11. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff further submits that the Plaintiff has
a clear locus standi to institute the present Suit by virtue of the Family
Settlement Deed dated 24.01.2011, the Will dated 09.07.2013 executed by
Late Shri Satish Chandra Gupta, and the Will dated 22.06.2021 executed by
Defendant No. 2. It is submitted that the Family Settlement was arrived at
after extensive deliberations amongst all family members.
12. He submits that the Family Settlement was acted upon and is binding
upon the parties. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submits that the plea of
Defendant No. 2 that she has no knowledge of the Family Settlement Deed
is untenable, as the said document records that it was executed by Late Shri
Satish Chandra Gupta on behalf of Defendant No. 2 and the Plaintiff, and by
Defendant No. 1 on behalf of his wife and daughters. It is further submitted
that the Will dated 09.07.2013, relied upon by Defendant No. 2, itself
acknowledges the Family Settlement by recording that Defendant No. 1 had
been given the business of M/s Konark Sarees during the lifetime of the
testator and had relinquished all rights in the remaining firms, HUF funds
CS(OS) 740/2023 Page 4 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/07/2026 at 21:47:09
and properties. Learned counsel therefore submits that the plea of ignorance
is contrary to the testamentary documents relied upon by Defendant No. 2
herself.
13. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff further submits that the Will dated
22.06.2021 and the General Power of Attorney executed by Defendant No. 2
are notarised documents carrying a presumption of genuineness and cannot
be discarded merely on the basis of bald allegations that they are false and
fabricated.
14. It is submitted that the plea of Defendant No. 2 that she does not
remember executing these documents itself raises doubts regarding her
mental condition and supports the Plaintiff’s case of undue influence
exercised by Defendant No. 1. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff, therefore,
submits that the Plaint clearly discloses a cause of action and the present
application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC deserves to be dismissed.
15. Heard the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the material
on record.
16. For the adjudication of the present Application, it is pertinent to refer
to Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, which reads as under:
“11. Rejection of plaint.
The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases-
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the
plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct
the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court,
fails to do so;
CS(OS) 740/2023 Page 5 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/07/2026 at 21:47:09
(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the
plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently
stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the
Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a
time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the
plaint to be barred by any law:
Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the
correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite
stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for
reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff
was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature
form correcting the valuation or supplying the
requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the
time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such
time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.”
17. The law relating to rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of
the CPC is crystallized through various judgments of the Apex Court. The
Apex Court in Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff
Assn., (2005) 7 SCC 510, has held as under:
“13. Before dealing with the factual scenario, the
spectrum of Order 7 Rule 11 in the legal ambit needs
to be noted.
14. In Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra [(2003) 1
SCC 557] it was held with reference to Order 7 Rule
11 of the Code that the relevant facts which need to be
looked into for deciding an application thereunder are
the averments in the plaint. The trial court can exercise
the power at any stage of the suit — before registering
the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at
any time before the conclusion of the trial. For the
purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a)CS(OS) 740/2023 Page 6 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/07/2026 at 21:47:09
and (d) of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, the averments
in the plaint are the germane; the pleas taken by the
defendant in the written statement would be wholly
irrelevant at that stage.
15. In I.T.C. Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal
[(1998) 2 SCC 70] it was held that the basic question
to be decided while dealing with an application filed
under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code is whether a real
cause of action has been set out in the plaint or
something purely illusory has been stated with a view
to get out of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code.
16. The trial court must remember that if on a
meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint it is
manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not
disclosing a clear right to sue, it should exercise the
power under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code taking care
to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. If
clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of
action, it has to be nipped in the bud at the first
hearing by examining the party searchingly under
Order 10 of the Code. (See T. Arivandandam v. T.V.
Satyapal [(1977) 4 SCC 467] .)
17. It is trite law that not any particular plea has to be
considered, and the whole plaint has to be read. As
was observed by this Court in Roop Lal Sathi v.
Nachhattar Singh Gill [(1982) 3 SCC 487] only a part
of the plaint cannot be rejected and if no cause of
action is disclosed, the plaint as a whole must be
rejected.
18. In Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. v. Ganesh Property
[(1998) 7 SCC 184] it was observed that the averments
in the plaint as a whole have to be seen to find out
whether clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 was
applicable.
CS(OS) 740/2023 Page 7 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/07/2026 at 21:47:09
19. There cannot be any compartmentalisation,
dissection, segregation and inversions of the language
of various paragraphs in the plaint. If such a course is
adopted it would run counter to the cardinal canon of
interpretation according to which a pleading has to be
read as a whole to ascertain its true import. It is not
permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage and to
read it out of the context in isolation. Although it is the
substance and not merely the form that has to be
looked into, the pleading has to be construed as it
stands without addition or subtraction of words or
change of its apparent grammatical sense. The
intention of the party concerned is to be gathered
primarily from the tenor and terms of his pleadings
taken as a whole. At the same time it should be borne
in mind that no pedantic approach should be adopted
to defeat justice on hair-splitting technicalities.
20. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles the reliefs
sought for in the suit as quoted supra have to be
considered. The real object of Order 7 Rule 11 of the
Code is to keep out of courts irresponsible law suits.
Therefore, Order 10 of the Code is a tool in the hands
of the courts by resorting to which and by searching
examination of the party in case the court is prima
facie of the view that the suit is an abuse of the process
of the court in the sense that it is a bogus and
irresponsible litigation, the jurisdiction under Order 7
Rule 11 of the Code can be exercised.”
18. It is well settled that at the stage of considering an application under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC, for rejection of the Plaint, the Court is required to
examine only the averments contained in the Plaint and the documents relied
upon therein and the defence taken by the defendants in the written
statement or in the application cannot be looked into. It is equally well
CS(OS) 740/2023 Page 8 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/07/2026 at 21:47:09
settled that the Court is not required to adjudicate upon disputed questions of
fact or examine the correctness of the rival claims while deciding an
Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
19. In the present case, a reading of the Plaint shows that the Plaintiff has
specifically pleaded that the Family Settlement Deed dated 24.01.2011
governed the rights of the parties and that the Suit Property was intended to
ultimately devolve upon the Plaintiff. It is pleaded that Late Shri Satish
Chandra Gupta executed the Will dated 09.07.2013 in furtherance of the said
Family Settlement and that Defendant No. 2 subsequently executed the Will
dated 22.06.2021 and General Power of Attorney in favour of the Plaintiff.
The Plaint also records that the Gift Deed dated 25.08.2022 was executed in
favour of Defendant No. 1 contrary to the Family Settlement and under
undue influence. These averments, if assumed to be correct, undoubtedly
disclose a cause of action requiring adjudication.
20. The grounds urged by Defendant No. 2, namely, that the Family
Settlement was never acted upon; that she became the absolute owner of the
Suit Property; that the Gift Deed was validly executed of her own free will;
that the Will dated 22.06.2021 and the General Power of Attorney are false
and fabricated; and that the Plaintiff has no locus standi; are all matters
which constitute the defence of Defendant No. 2. Acceptance or rejection of
these pleas necessarily requires appreciation of documentary as well as oral
evidence. Such disputed questions cannot be examined while exercising
jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
21. The contention of Defendant No.2 that no relief has been claimed
against her also does not merit acceptance. The Plaint specifically challenges
the Gift Deed dated 25.08.2022, which is alleged to have been executed by
CS(OS) 740/2023 Page 9 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/07/2026 at 21:47:09
Defendant No. 2 in favour of Defendant No. 1. Therefore, Defendant No. 2
is a proper and necessary party for the effective adjudication of the issues
arising in the present Suit.
22. It is also pertinent to note that the application itself raises several
factual pleas relating to the validity of the Family Settlement, the
testamentary documents, the Gift Deed and the alleged cancellation of the
Will and General Power of Attorney. These issues are disputed by the
Plaintiff and cannot be decided without a full-fledged trial.
23. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that
the Plaint cannot be said to be devoid of a cause of action or barred by any
law on the face of the averments contained therein. The application filed by
Defendant No. 2 essentially invites this Court to adjudicate disputed
questions of fact by accepting the defence put forth by her, which is
impermissible while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11
CPC.
24. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed.
25. It is made clear that the observations made herein are only for the
purpose of deciding the present application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC
and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case, which
shall be decided independently after the parties lead evidence.
I.A. 8787/2024
26. The present application has been filed by the Plaintiff under Order XII
Rule 8 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking
a direction to the Defendants to produce the Will dated 22.11.2023 allegedly
executed by Defendant No. 2 in favour of Defendant No. 1, as also to
disclose the status of the HUF funds and details of the properties and assets
CS(OS) 740/2023 Page 10 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/07/2026 at 21:47:09
of Late Shri Satish Chandra Gupta, which are stated to be in the exclusive
possession and custody of the Defendants.
27. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff submits that after institution of the
Suit, Defendant No. 2 issued a notice dated 11.12.2023 claiming that the
Will dated 09.06.2021 and the General Power of Attorney executed in
favour of the Plaintiff were false and stood revoked. It is stated that in the
said notice, Defendant No. 2 also referred to a subsequent Will dated
22.11.2023 allegedly executed in favour of Defendant No. 1, but failed to
furnish a copy thereof. It is submitted that the said Will is in the exclusive
possession and custody of the Defendants and is a material document having
a direct bearing on the controversy in the present Suit. It is further submitted
that information relating to the HUF funds and assets of Late Shri Satish
Chandra Gupta is also in the exclusive possession of the Defendants, and
disclosure thereof is necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the
disputes involved in the present Suit.
28. Per contra, learned counsel for Defendant No. 1 submits that the
present Application is not maintainable under Order XII Rule 8 CPC. It is
submitted that the alleged Family Settlement Deed was never acted upon
and that the Suit Property was the self-acquired property of Late Shri Satish
Chandra Gupta. It is further submitted that the Will dated 22.11.2023 is not
the subject matter of the present Suit, which only concerns the validity of the
Gift Deed dated 25.08.2022. It is also submitted that there existed no HUF
owning the Suit Property or carrying on any business, and therefore no
direction for production of the documents sought deserves to be issued.
29. Heard the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the material
on record.
CS(OS) 740/2023 Page 11 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/07/2026 at 21:47:09
30. The principal objection of the Defendants is that the present
application under Order XII Rule 8 CPC is not maintainable as the same has
been filed under incorrect provisions. Even assuming that the provision
invoked by the Plaintiff is not the appropriate provision, it is well settled that
mere quoting of a wrong provision of law is not fatal where the Court
otherwise possesses the jurisdiction to grant the relief sought. The Court is
vested with ample powers to direct production of documents which are
relevant and necessary for the just adjudication of the controversy between
the parties. Procedural law is intended to advance the cause of justice and
not to defeat it on technicalities.
31. In the present case, the existence of the Will dated 22.11.2023 is not
disputed. On the contrary, the Defendants themselves rely upon the notice
dated 11.12.2023, wherein reference has been made to the execution of the
said Will in favour of Defendant No. 1. Having disclosed the existence of
the said document, the Defendants cannot withhold its production by merely
contending that it is not the subject matter of the present Suit. Whether the
said Will ultimately has any evidentiary value or legal effect is a matter to
be considered at the appropriate stage. However, if a document admittedly
exists and has a bearing on the inter se rights of the parties concerning the
Suit Property, its production would facilitate complete and effective
adjudication of the dispute.
32. The contention that the Will dated 22.11.2023 is wholly irrelevant
also cannot be accepted at this stage. The case of the Plaintiff is that the
impugned Gift Deed dated 25.08.2022, the subsequent notice dated
11.12.2023, and the Will dated 22.11.2023 form part of the same chain of
events by which Defendant No. 1 allegedly sought to defeat the Family
CS(OS) 740/2023 Page 12 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/07/2026 at 21:47:09
Settlement and the testamentary arrangements relied upon by the Plaintiff.
Whether such a case is ultimately established is a matter of trial. At this
stage, the Court is only concerned with whether the document sought is
relevant for effective adjudication and this Court is of the considered
opinion that the documents sought are relevant for effective adjudication of
the dispute in question.
33. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this
Court is satisfied that the Will dated 22.11.2023 sought by the Plaintiff are
relevant and necessary for the fair and effective adjudication of the present
Suit, and that their production would facilitate the determination of the real
questions in controversy.
34. Accordingly, the present application is allowed. The Defendants are
directed to file the documents within four weeks from today.
35. It is clarified that the observations made herein are only for the
purpose of deciding the present application and shall not be construed as an
expression of opinion on the merits of the rival claims in the Suit.
CS(OS) 740/2023
36. It is stated that Defendant No.2, who is the mother of Plaintiff and
Defendant No.1, has passed away.
37. The statement is taken on record.
38. List before the Joint Registrar on 03.09.2026.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
JULY 17, 2026
Rahul
CS(OS) 740/2023 Page 13 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/07/2026 at 21:47:09
