IN THE COURT OF MS. BHARTI BENIWAL, LD.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

(SOUTH WEST), DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI

CS SCJ No. 1440 of 2021

IN THE MATTER OF:

SMT. KANCHAN CHHABRA …. PLAINTIFF

Versus

SHRI UMESH SRIVASTAVA & ORS. …. DEFENDANTS

NDOH- 02.08.2022

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

No. 4 (Mrs. SUMAN POPLI) FOR REJECTION OF THE PLAINT

The Applicant most humbly submits as under: -

1. That the instant suit has been filed by the Plaintiff seeking mandatory

injunction, permanent injunction and a decree of declaration.

2. That instant suit ought to be dismissed since it fails to establish any

cause of action accruing in favour of the Plaintiff and against the

Defendants in terms of Order 7 Rule 11(a) of The Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908. It is an admitted fact that the suit property bearing

Flat No. 111, Block no. C-4B, Pocket-13, Ground Floor, Janak Puri,

New
 Delhi- 110058 owned by Late Smt. Sheela Srivastava, who was the

mother of the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 1 & 2. It is a matter of

record that Late Smt. Sheela Srivastava executed a Will dated

13.01.2004 registered with Sub – Registrar II, Janak Puri, New Delhi

thereby transferring the suit property in favour of her son, Mr. Umesh

Srivastava (i.e., Defendant no.1) after her demise. Moreover, the said

Will also explicitly states that the other legal heirs, successors

shall have no right, title or interest of any nature whatsoever in the

aforesaid property. Thus, after demise of Late Smt. Sheela

Srivastava on 07.03.2019, by virtue of the Will dated 13.01.2004, the

suit property was transferred to the Defendant No.1 and consequently

vide Sale deed dated 03.08.2021 executed between Defendant no.1

and Defendant no.4 thereby lawfully transferring the suit property in

favour of the Applicant/Defendant no.4.

3. It is submitted that the Plaintiff has failed to establish any cause of

action accruing in its favour. The Plaintiff has taken a plea that cause of

action to file the present suit arose in July 2021 when Defendant No. 1

unlawfully took signatures of the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 2 on false

pretext. It is relevant to state that a cause of action is a bundle of facts

which taken with the law applicable to them gives the Plaintiff a right to

relief against the Defendants. Also such facts must include an act on

the part of the concerned defendant. It is submitted that no averment to

this effect has been made by the Plaintiff in the present matter.
4. The Plaintiff has filed the present suit making allegations on two

stances i.e. defendant no. 1 forged and fabricated papers to obtain the

suit property in collusion with defendant no. 4 and also took all the silver

and gold jewellery of the mother.

5. At the first instance it is stated that Plaintiff has failed to rely on any

documentary evidence which remotely suggests that defendant no. 1

had forged and fabricated papers to obtain the suit property.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff has not annexed any document along with the

Plaint which could even remotely suggest that the defendant no. 1 had

forged and fabricated papers to obtain suit property in collusion with

Defendant No. 4.

6. That instant suit ought to be dismissed since the relief claimed is

undervalued in terms of Order 7 Rule 11(b) of The Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908. That the Plaintiff sought for the decree of declaration

thereby declaring the sale deed dated 03.08.2021 executed between

the Applicant/Defendant no.4 (the buyer of suit property) and the

Defendant no.1 (Seller of the suit property) as null and void. The

Plaintiff has valued the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction and court fee

at Rs. 2,000/- each thereby undervaluing the relief. Court Fee. The suit

property in question was sold by way of a Registered Sale Deed and

the plaint shall accordingly be valued as per the market value of the suit

property at the date of institution of the present suit.

7. That instant suit ought to be dismissed since the suit is barred by law in

terms of Order 7 Rule 11(d) of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The

Plaintiff, in the present suit, sought decree of declaration thereby

declaring the sale deed dated 03.08.2021 executed between the

Applicant/Defendant no.4 (the buyer of suit property) and the Defendant

no.1 (Seller of the suit property) as null and void as well as permanent

injunction to restrain the Applicant/Defendant no.4 from selling or

alienating the suit property. It is an admitted fact that the Plaintiff is not

in possession of the suit property and the Plaintiff cannot seek the relief

of decree of declaration without praying for relief of possession of suit

property as the same is barred by Section 34 of Specific Relief Act.

8. In view of the aforesaid, it is trite that the instant suit ought to be

dismissed out rightly since there is absolutely no cause of action in

favour of the Plaintiff in any such way, the relief claimed is undervalued

and the suit is barred by law.

9. It is submitted that no prejudice or harm would be caused to the Plaintiff

if the instant application is allowed. However, grave prejudice and harm

would be caused to the Applicant/Defendant No. 4 being the bona fide

purchaser of the suit property.

10. It is further submitted that, the balance of convenience lies heavily in

favour of the Applicant/ Defendant no.4 and the instant application is

being filed with bona fide intent and in the interest of justice.
 PRAYER
It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that in the above facts and

circumstances, this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

a. allow the present application and the reject the present suit with

exemplary costs throughout in the interest of justice; and

b. pass such other appropriate orders/directions as this Hon’ble Court

may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case

in favour of Defendant No. 4 and against the Plaintiff.

APPLICANT/DEFENDANT NO.4

THROUGH COUNSELS

Place: New Delhi R S Kela, Sanjeev Bindal, Bharat Gupta

Date: & Aakash Dahiya, Advocates,
For RKCA Law Associates LLP
A-531, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110052.
Ph. No.: 9810801651, 9268300000
E-mail- sanjeev.bindal@rkca.net
 IN THE COURT OF MS. BHARTI BENIWAL, LD. CIVIL JUDGE,

(SOUTH WEST), DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI

CS SCJ No. 1440 of 2021

IN THE MATTER OF:

SMT. KANCHAN CHHABRA …. PLAINTIFF

Versus

SHRI UMESH SRIVASTAVA & ORS. …. DEFENDANTS

NDOH- 02.08.2022

AFFIDAVIT

I, Smt. Suman Popli, W/o Sh. Dinesh Kumar Popli aged about 50 years, residing at

House No. 590, Ground Floor, B-1 Block, Janak Puri, New Delhi-110058 do hereby

solemnly affirm and state as under:

1. That I am the Defendant no.4 in the present suit and conversant with the facts

and circumstances of the case and thus competent to swear on oath the

present affidavit.

2. That the present application has been drafted by my counsels under my

instructions and the contents of the same are true and correct to my

knowledge

and may kindly be read as part and parcel of this affidavit as the same are

not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

 DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:

Verified at Delhi on _____ of August, 2022, that the contents of the above

affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. No part of it is false

and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT
 IN THE COURT OF MS. BHARTI BENIWAL, LD. CIVIL JUDGE,

(SOUTH WEST), DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI

CS SCJ No. 1440 of 2021

IN THE MATTER OF:

SMT. KANCHAN CHHABRA …. PLAINTIFF

Versus

SHRI UMESH SRIVASTAVA & ORS. …. DEFENDANTS

NDOH- 02.08.2022

INDEX

S. No. Particulars Page

No.
1. Application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC on behalf of the
Defendant No.4 i.e., Mrs. Suman Popli for rejection of suit
along with supporting Affidavit

THROUGH COUNSELS

Place: New Delhi R S Kela, Sanjeev Bindal, Bharat Gupta

Date: & Aakash Dahiya, Advocates,
For RKCA Law Associates LLP
A-531, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110052.
Ph. No.: 9810801651, 9268300000
E-mail- Sanjeev.bindal@rkca.net