Delhi High Court – Orders
Dr. (Ms.) Usha Aggarwal vs Shri Avdesh Chand Gupta & Ors on 8 April, 2026
Author: Subramonium Prasad
Bench: Subramonium Prasad
$~60
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 396/2019
DR. (MS.) USHA AGGARWAL .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Digvijay and Mr. Archit Mishra,
Advs. with (Sh. Ganga Dhar
Choudhary in person)
versus
SHRI AVDESH CHAND GUPTA & ORS. .....Defendants
Through: Dr. R.K. Sharma Rakesh Joshi and
Isha Gupta Advs. for D-2
Ms. Beenashaw N. Soni, Addl.
Standing Counsel, DDA with Ms.
Ann Joseph, Adv. for D-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
ORDER
% 08.04.2026
I.A. 9452/2026
1. The present application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the CPC“), has been filed on
behalf of the Defendant No.2 for rejection of the Plaint.
2. The present Suit is one for Suit for declaration that all the alleged
transfer documents are illegal, null and void. The Plaintiff has also sought
for possession of Flat No.4072, First Floor, Pocket-IV, Sector-C, Vasant
Kunj, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Suit Property’).
3. Facts, in brief, leading to the filing of the present Suit are as under:
a. It is stated that in 1982, the plaintiff, who is now a senior
CS(OS) 396/2019 Page 1 of 12
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 15/04/2026 at 20:35:13
citizen, applied for allotment of a flat under the Self Financing
Housing Scheme launched by the DDA/Defendant No.3 herein.
It is stated that the Plaintiff deposited the required registration
amount and was declared successful in the draw held in 1987.
Thereafter, she was allotted the Suit Property by the DDA. It is
stated that the Plaintiff paid all instalments as demanded by the
DDA from time to time between 1988 and 1996, ultimately
paying a total sum of Rs.4,52,470/- towards the full cost of the
flat.
b. It is stated that in June 1996, DDA confirmed the allotment and
authorized handing over of possession, and handed over the
possession of the Suit Property to the plaintiff on 08.04.1997. It
is stated that after taking possession, the Plaintiff obtained
water and electricity connections in her own name and
continued to pay house tax for several years. It is stated that till
2004-05, either Plaintiff or her representatives used to visit the
flat periodically. It is stated that until 2005, the Suit Property
was secure, and there was no encroachment on the same.
c. It is stated that post 2005, the Plaintiff became occupied with
her family issues, including taking care of her ailing siblings,
and she also suffered from ill health herself. It is stated that due
to these circumstances, the Plaintiff could not keep a regular
track of the Suit Property for several years. It is stated that in
September 2015, while reviewing her assets, the Plaintiff came
across documents relating to the Suit Property and decided to
visit the same. It is stated that on 27.09.2015, when the PlaintiffCS(OS) 396/2019 Page 2 of 12
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 15/04/2026 at 20:35:13
visited the Suit Property, she discovered for the first time that
Defendant No. 2 was in possession of the same. It is stated that
upon inquiry, Defendant No.2 refused to vacate the Suit
Property and stated that he had purchased the property from
Defendant No. 1. This prompted the Plaintiff to investigate the
title of the property. It is stated that the Plaintiff approached the
Sub-Registrar’s office and obtained a certified copy of a Sale
Deed dated 09.01.2006 showing transfer of the Suit Property
from Defendant No. 1 to Defendant No. 2. She then sought
records from DDA and through RTI obtained documents which
revealed a chain of transactions allegedly showing that the
property had first been transferred by her to one Ashok Jain
through documents dated 01.08.1996 (including GPA,
Agreement to Sell, Will and receipts), then by Ashok Jain to
Defendant No. 1, and finally by Defendant No. 1 to Defendant
No. 2.
d. It is the case of the Plaintiff that she never executed any such
documents and alleged that all these documents were forged,
including her signatures and thumb impressions. She further
discovered that the Suit Property had been converted from
leasehold to freehold in favour of Defendant No. 1 in 2005, and
thereafter sold to Defendant No. 2 in 2006. According to the
Plaintiff, all these transactions were carried out fraudulently and
without her knowledge, even before she had effectively taken
possession and control of the Suit Property.
e. It is stated that following this discovery, the Plaintiff initiatedCS(OS) 396/2019 Page 3 of 12
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 15/04/2026 at 20:35:13
criminal proceedings by filing a complaint in November 2015,
which led to registration of an FIR in February 2016 for
offences of cheating and forgery. It is stated that during the
investigation, the police obtained a forensic report (RFSL)
which suggested that the signatures on the disputed documents
matched those of the Plaintiff. On that basis, the police filed a
closure report alleging that the complaint of the Plaintiff was
false. However, the Plaintiff contested the same and obtained an
independent expert opinion in 2018, which concluded that both
the signatures and thumb impressions on the disputed
documents were not of the Plaintiff.
f. It is stated that the Plaintiff also approached this Court by filing
W.P.(C)2597/2016 seeking relief against DDA, including
allotment of an alternative flat. It is stated that the said Writ
Petition was dismissed vide Order dated 23.11.2017 on the
ground that disputed questions of fact were involved, and
certain adverse observations were made. However, the Plaintiff
herein filed an appeal, being LPA No.786/2017, against the
Order dismissing the Writ Petition. It is stated that the Division
Bench vide Order dated 13.12.2017 allowed the Appeal and set
aside those adverse observations and clarified that the matter
required adjudication before the appropriate forum.
g. Thereafter, the Plaintiff has filed the present Suit with the
following prayers:
“i) a decree of declaration that the General Power
of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Will and Receipts allCS(OS) 396/2019 Page 4 of 12
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 15/04/2026 at 20:35:13
dated 01.08.1996 allegedly executed between the
Plaintiff and Shri Ashok Jain to be declared as illegal,
null and void,
ii) a decree of declaration that General Power of
Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Will and Receipts all
dated 08.12.1996 allegedly executed between Shri
Ashok Jain and the Defendant No. 1 to be declared as
illegal, null and void,
iii) a decree of declaration that the conveyance
deed dated 21.10.2005 executed by the Defendant No.
3 in favour of the Defendant No.1 and duly registered
vide registration No. 16428 in Book No.1, Vol. No.
1737 on pages 139 to 141 in the Office of Sub
Registrar- VII, New Delhi to be declared as illegal,
null and void.
iv) a decree of declaration that the Sale Deed
dated 09.01.2006 executed between the Defendant No.
1 in favour of Defendant No. 2 vide registration No.
392 in Addl. Book No.1, Vol. No. 2553 on pages 107 to
134 be declared to be illegal, null and void
v) a decree of consequential possession of the suit
premises i.e. Flat No. 4072, First Floor, Pocket – IV,
Sector – C, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi with Scooter
Garage and mesne profits from September, 2015 till
possession and
vi) award cost of the suit in favour of the Plaintiff
and against the Defendants.”
4. The present Application has been filed by the Defendant No. 2 under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the Plaint on the ground that the Suit
filed by the Plaintiff is wholly without cause of action, vexatious and
CS(OS) 396/2019 Page 5 of 12
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 15/04/2026 at 20:35:13
meritless, and does not disclose any clear right to sue, and therefore the
Plaint is liable to be rejected at the threshold. It is specifically contended that
the Suit is barred by limitation, as per the Plaintiff’s own averments in the
Plaint that the cause of action arose on 25.09.2015, whereas the suit was
filed only in July 2019, which is beyond the prescribed period of three years.
It was stated that once limitation begins to run, it continues under Section 9
of the Limitation Act. Defendant No.2 further asserts that even if multiple
causes of action are pleaded, limitation must be computed from the first
cause of action, thereby making the present suit time-barred, and
consequently, the main relief of declaration as well as the consequential
reliefs, are not maintainable. It is also alleged that the Suit is an abuse of the
process of law as the same is misconceived and based on spurious claims,
particularly when the Suit Property has already been transferred multiple
times and ultimately stands conveyed to Defendant No. 2 through a
registered sale deed. Defendant No.2 also contends that the plaintiff had no
subsisting right to execute any documents as alleged, and the Suit has been
filed despite the property having already been transferred to subsequent
purchasers, thereby reinforcing that no cause of action survives.
5. Heard the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the material on
record.
6. 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;
CS(OS) 396/2019 Page 6 of 12
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 15/04/2026 at 20:35:13
(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;
(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.”
7. The law relating to rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 is
crystallised 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
CS(OS) 396/2019 Page 7 of 12
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 15/04/2026 at 20:35:13
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)
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 ofCS(OS) 396/2019 Page 8 of 12
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 15/04/2026 at 20:35:13
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.
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.”
CS(OS) 396/2019 Page 9 of 12
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 15/04/2026 at 20:35:13
8. At the outset, it is settled law that while considering an application
under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court is required to confine itself strictly
to the averments made in the Plaint and the documents relied upon by the
Plaintiff, and the defence taken by the Defendant cannot be looked into. The
Plaint has to be read as a whole and in a meaningful manner to determine
whether it discloses a cause of action or is barred by any law.
9. In the present case, a reading of the Plaint shows that the Plaintiff has
categorically pleaded that she is the original allottee of the Suit Property and
that she came to know of the alleged illegal transfer and possession of
Defendant No. 2 only in September, 2015, upon visiting the property. It is
further averred that thereafter she undertook various steps, including
obtaining documents, filing complaints, and pursuing remedies before
different forums, and ultimately filed the present suit in July, 2019. The
Plaintiff has also specifically pleaded facts to bring her case within the
limitation, including the period spent in pursuing Writ proceedings and other
remedies.
10. The contention of Defendant No. 2 that the Suit is barred by limitation
on the basis of the dates mentioned in the Plaint cannot be accepted at this
stage.
11. Material on record indicates that the Plaintiff had filed a Writ Petition
being W.P.(C)2597/2016 seeking relief against DDA. The said Writ Petition
was dismissed on 23.11.2017 on the ground that disputed questions of fact
were involved. An Appeal therefrom being LPA No.786/2017 filed by the
Plaintiff was allowed on 13.12.2017 by which the Division Bench set aside
the adverse observations but held that appropriate proceedings must be
CS(OS) 396/2019 Page 10 of 12
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 15/04/2026 at 20:35:13
initiated. The issue as to whether the Petitioner was bona fide pursuing the
writ petition or whether the Plaintiff would be entitled to the benefit of
Section 14 of the Limitation Act or whether the time taken in filing the Writ
Petition till the disposal of the LPA must be excluded or not are all issues
which involve mixed questions of law and fact and can be decided only after
leading evidence and at the time of trial.
12. Similarly, the question as to when the cause of action arose, whether
the Plaintiff was aware of possession of the Suit Property by Defendant
No.2, are all issues which involve mixed questions of law and fact cannot be
conclusively determined without evidence. It is well settled that unless the
bar of limitation is apparent on the face of the Plaint, the Plaint cannot be
rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
13. Similarly, the plea that the Plaint does not disclose any cause of action
is also devoid of merit. The Plaint contains detailed averments alleging
fraud, forgery of documents, illegal transfer of property, and unauthorised
possession by Defendant No. 2, and seeks declaration and possession. These
averments, if taken at face value, clearly disclose a triable cause of action.
Whether the allegations are ultimately proved or not is a matter for trial and
cannot be adjudicated at this stage.
14. Further, the contentions of the Defendant No.2 that the Suit is
vexatious, misconceived, or that the property has already been transferred
through registered documents pertain to the defence of the Defendant and
cannot be considered while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11
CPC. The Court cannot embark upon an enquiry into the correctness or
otherwise of the allegations made in the Plaint at this stage.
15. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
CS(OS) 396/2019 Page 11 of 12
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 15/04/2026 at 20:35:13
Plaint discloses a cause of action and that the question of limitation is not ex
facie apparent so as to warrant rejection of the Plaint at the threshold. The
application filed by Defendant No. 2 is therefore misconceived and does not
merit acceptance.
16. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
APRIL 08, 2026
Rahul
CS(OS) 396/2019 Page 12 of 12
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 15/04/2026 at 20:35:13