Delhi High Court – Orders
Master Yuvraj Malhotra (Minor) And … vs Smt Kanchan Malhotra And Others on 17 March, 2026
$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 597/2025, I.A. 21643/2025, I.A. 21644/2025, I.A.
21645/2025, I.A. 21648/2025 & I.A. 25090/2025
MASTER YUVRAJ MALHOTRA (MINOR) AND ANOTHER
.....Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. Deepak Dhingra & Ms. Sneh
Somani, Advs. (through VC)
versus
SMT KANCHAN MALHOTRA AND OTHERS .....Defendants
Through: Ms. Tanishka, Adv. (through VC)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN
ORDER
% 17.03.2026
I.A. 25090/2025
1. This application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (for short „CPC‟) is filed by defendant nos.1 and 2 seeking
rejection of the plaint.
2. The brief facts are that the plaintiffs i.e. the minor child through his
natural mother and legal guardian (hereinafter „the minor‟) and the mother
of the minor have filed a suit for partition of the property constructed on Plot
bearing No.A-3/35, Janakpuri, New Delhi, 110058 comprising of the
basement of 300 sq. yards, first floor, second floor and terrace constructed
on 150 sq. yards (hereinafter „the suit property‟).
3. Further prayer is for rendition of accounts and to render true accounts
of all rentals/profits accrued from the suit property from the date of the death
of the grandfather of the minor till filing of the suit and direct that the
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 19/03/2026 at 20:55:36
plaintiffs shall be entitled to their proportionate shares in the rental/profits
accrued from the suit property along with interest.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants/defendant nos.1 and 2 argues that
the plaintiff no.2 is not the legal guardian. She had left the minor after six
months of death of her husband and remarried. She is residing with her
husband for the last ten years but the minor is residing with the maternal
grandmother. The contention is that the suit property has not been properly
described in the plaint. Lastly, that the claim for the proportionate
rentals/profits accrued from the suit property is time barred.
5. Per contra, the scope of interference under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is
limited. At this stage, Court cannot travel beyond the pleadings in the plaint.
The submission is that the plaintiff no.1 is a minor and the suit has been
filed through his mother who is a natural guardian and the next friend. The
contention that the suit property has not been properly described in the plaint
is refuted. The argument that the claim for the rentals/profits accrued from
the suit property is time barred is contested stating that the prayer is for
rendition of accounts and thereafter a declaration that the plaintiffs are
entitled to their proportionate share in the rentals/profits accrued from the
suit property. The argument is that the cause of action arose only when the
differences arose between the parties.
6. The law is well settled that while deciding an application under Order
VII Rule 11 CPC the court has to restrict to the pleadings in the plaint and
the averments therein are taken to be correct. At this stage, the court is not
required to weigh the contentions of the defendants as the same are
immaterial. The plea of knowledge at a particular time giving rise to the
cause of action is to be accepted. Reference in this regard can be made to the
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 19/03/2026 at 20:55:36
following judgements of the Supreme Court:-
6.1 In Uma Devi & Ors. v. Anand Kumar & Ors. 2025 INSC 434 it
was held:
“15. In Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal (2017)
13 SCC 174, this court laid down the scope of Order 7 Rule 11
CPC :
7. The plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 if
conditions enumerated in the said provision are fulfilled. It
is needless to observe that the power under Order VII Rule
11, CPC can be exercised by the Court at any stage of the
suit. The relevant facts which need to be looked into for
deciding the application are the averments of the plaint
only. If on an entire and meaningful reading of the plaint,
it is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and
meritless in the sense of not disclosing any right to sue, the
court should exercise power under Order VII Rule 11,
CPC. Since the power conferred on the Court to terminate
civil action at the threshold is drastic, the conditions
enumerated under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to the
exercise of power of rejection of plaint have to be strictly
adhered to. The averments of the plaint have to be read as
a whole to find out whether the averments disclose a cause
of action or whether the suit is barred by any law. It is
needless to observe that the question as to whether the suit
is barred by any law, would always depend upon the facts
and circumstances of each case. The averments in the
written statement as well as the contentions of the
defendant are wholly immaterial while considering the
prayer of the defendant for rejection of the plaint…….”
6.2 In Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (2020) 7 SCC 366 it
was held:
“23.5. The power conferred on the court to terminate a
civil action is, however, a drastic one, and the conditions
enumerated in Order 7 Rule 11 are required to be strictlyThis 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 19/03/2026 at 20:55:36
adhered to.
23.6. Under Order 7 Rule 11, a duty is cast on the court to
determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action by
scrutinising the averments in the plaint [Liverpool &
London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I, (2004) 9
SCC 512] , read in conjunction with the documents relied
upon, or whether the suit is barred by any law.
xxx xxx xxx
23.10. At this stage, the pleas taken by the defendant in the
written statement and application for rejection of the plaint
on the merits, would be irrelevant, and cannot be adverted
to, or taken into consideration.4″
6.3 In Salim D. Agboatwala v. Shamalji Oddhavji Thakkar (2021) 17
SCC 100 it was held:
“11. As observed by this Court in P.V. Guru Raj
Reddy v. P. Neeradha Reddy [P.V. Guru Raj Reddy v. P.
Neeradha Reddy, (2015) 8 SCC 331 : (2015) 4 SCC (Civ)
100] , the rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 is a
drastic power conferred on the court to terminate a civil
action at the threshold. Therefore, the conditions precedent
to the exercise of the power are stringent and it is
especially so when rejection of plaint is sought on the
ground of limitation. When a plaintiff claims that he
gained knowledge of the essential facts giving rise to the
cause of action only at a particular point of time, the same
has to be accepted at the stage of considering the
application under Order 7 Rule 11.”
7. The factum of the plaintiff no.2 being the biological mother of
plaintiff no.1 is not in dispute, she continues to be the natural guardian and
has been so pleaded. The relevance of the factum of the plaintiff no.2
remarrying and the minor staying with the maternal grandmother shall be
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 19/03/2026 at 20:55:36
considered by the civil court at an appropriate stage and cannot be a ground
for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
8. The objection that the suit property has not been properly described is
ill-founded. The relevant portion of paragraph 3 of the suit is as follows:
“3. The Plaintiffs seek partition of property bearing No. A-
3/35 (Half Portion on its left side), Janakpuri, New Delhi
110058, total admeasuring 300 sq. yds. During life time of the
grandfather of the Plaintiff no. 1, late Shri Satish Kumar, he
sold out the right side of the property to various parties, which
comprised of the ground floor, first floor, second floor and the
roof top open to sky. The left side of the property of which the
Plaintiffs seek partition and other reliefs comprises of
basement which is constructed on the entire plot which
admeasures 300 sq. yds and the first, second, and the top floor
which have been constructed on 150 sq. yds. The grandfather
of the Plaintiff no. 1 and ex-father-in law of Plaintiff no. 2,
during his life time, constructed and sold the right-hand side
portion comprising of only first, second, third floor and roof
top open to sky and left behind the entire basement of 300 sq.
yds, the first floor and the second floor and the top floor the
remaining 150 sq. yds of which the Plaintiffs seek partition
being entitled to 1/3rd share, the other legal heirs left behind by
grandfather being his wife (grandmother of the Plaintiff no. 1
and ex-mother-in – law of Plaintiff no. 2), and a daughter, the
defendant no. 2 herein.”
9. Lastly, the question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law.
Moreover, the prayer is for rendition of accounts and for direction to the
defendants to produce the true accounts of the rentals/profits accrued from
the suit property and thereafter a declaration is sought that the plaintiffs are
entitled to their proportionate share and the accrued rentals/profits to be
determined. This prayer is to be dealt after determining as to when the cause
of action arose, this needs adducing of evidence and this question cannot be
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 19/03/2026 at 20:55:36
gone into at the stage of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11
CPC.
10. The present application lacks merit and consequently is dismissed.
CS(OS) 597/2025, I.A. 21643/2025, I.A. 21644/2025, I.A. 21645/2025,
I.A. 21648/2025 & I.A. 25090/2025
11. Put up on 03.08.2026.
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J
MARCH 17, 2026
‘ha’
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 19/03/2026 at 20:55:36
