Civil applications

Application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint

Name: Justis AI
Availability: InStock

0 of 70 blanks filled

IN THE COURT OF Name of judge/court

CIVIL CASE NO.OF Year

IN THE MATTER OF:-

Plaintiffs' names…PLAINTIFFS

VERSUS

Defendants' names…DEFENDANTS

APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NO. 1 UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, FOR REJECTION OF THE PLAINT

THE DEFENDANT NO. 1 MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS:

1.The plaintiffs have filed the present suit against the defendants for permanent and mandatory injunction. It is submitted that the plaint is liable to be rejected in accordance with the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as it fails to disclose a cause of action against Defendant No. 1. It is further submitted that the suit has not been filed in accordance with the requirements of Orders IV, VI and VII of the Code, and is therefore liable to be dismissed.

2.That the plaintiffs have not approached this Hon'ble Court with clean hands. It is submitted that Defendant No. 1 is not the sole owner of the entire suit property and holds only an undivided share of Defendant no. 1's undivided share percentage% therein. There are three other co-owners of the suit property, namely, the wife of Defendant No. 1, Name of defendant no. 1's wife, holding an undivided share of Wife's undivided share percentage%, and the wife of Name of co-owner, namely Name of co-owner's wife, holding an undivided share of 25% in the suit property.

3.That the suit property was purchased by Defendant No. 1, Name of co-purchaser 1, Name of co-purchaser 2 and Name of co-purchaser 3 for a sale consideration of Rs. Sale consideration amount (₹) (amount in words) on Date of sale (day).Date of sale (month).Year of sale. The sale was duly registered with the Sub-Registrar, Registration office detail, vide registration number Registration number, in Book No. X, Volume No. Volume number, at pages Starting page number to Ending page number, upon payment of stamp duty of Rs. Stamp duty amount (₹)/- (amount in words) on the sale consideration for the purchase of the suit property in question.

4.That the suit property was purchased by Defendant No. 1 and the other co-purchasers from the earlier owners, namely Name of earlier owner 1 and Name of earlier owner 2, who were joint owners of the suit property and were in possession of a freehold, single-storey built-up property bearing municipal number Municipal number of suit property/X, measuring Area of property (sq yards) sq. yards (Area of property (sq metres) sq. metres), constructed on a portion of old Plot No. Old plot number, situated at Property address (State) – State/PIN code of property (PIN code).

5.That none of the other plaintiffs reside adjacent to the property of Defendant No. 1. Only one plaintiff, namely Name of plaintiff with adjoining wall, has a wall adjoining the property of Defendant No. 1. The plaintiff named Name of plaintiff applying for deletion has filed an application under Order I Rule 10 seeking deletion of his name from the array of plaintiffs, as he wishes to withdraw from the present suit. The properties of all the other plaintiffs are situated far away from the property of Defendant No. 1.

6.That the following table sets out the entire chain of title of the suit property:

SNO	Previous owner	Buyer
1.	Chain entry 1: previous owner	Chain entry 1: buyer

Chain entry 2: previous owner

Chain entry 2: buyer

Chain entry 3: previous owner

Chain entry 3: buyer

Chain entry 4: previous owner

Chain entry 4: buyer

7.That thereafter the suit property was purchased by Defendant No. 1, Name of co-purchaser 1, Name of co-purchaser 2 and Name of co-purchaser 3 after obtaining a loan from Name of finance company FINANCE LTD. It is pertinent to mention that all the original documents together with the chain of title of the suit property have been retained by Name of finance company FINANCE LTD. The said finance company extends loans to prospective buyers only when it is fully satisfied with the chain of title, the value of the property, the property documents, and the fact that the property is free from all encumbrances, and the property has been inspected and valued by the officers of Name of finance company Finance Ltd.

8.That the layout plan was duly inspected by the Government departments. Officials of the NDMC visited the suit property on several occasions, and after a thorough inspection, a letter was issued to Defendant No. 1 by the Assistant Engineer, Delhi Municipal Corporation, Delhi (M)-II, (M)-I City, State of MCD letter (State), dated Date of MCD letter (day).Date of MCD letter (month).Year of MCD letter. The said letter has already been annexed to the written statement filed on behalf of Defendant No. 1.

9.That it is submitted at the outset that whenever Defendant No. 1 and the other owners of the suit property measuring Suit property area (sq yards) sq. yards attempted to raise new construction thereon, they were obstructed by persons residing in the neighbourhood. It is pertinent to mention that on Date of wall-breaking incident (day).Date of wall-breaking incident (month).Year of wall-breaking incident, one of the neighbouring persons demolished the newly constructed wall of Defendant No. 1, attempted to take illegal possession of the suit property, and also called other persons to park their vehicles on the property of Defendant No. 1, which they did. Left with no option, Defendant No. 1 immediately lodged a police complaint with the SHO, Police Station Police station name (State: State of police station), vide Diary No. Diary number of police complaint, dated Date of police complaint (day).Date of police complaint (month).Year of police complaint. The said complaint has already been annexed to the written statement.

10.That it is further submitted that, as per the revenue records also, the suit property stands mutated in the names of Defendant No. 1, Name of co-mutatee 1, Name of co-mutatee 2 and Name of co-mutatee 3. Copies of the fee receipt, site plan, acknowledgement receipt, electricity bill and other relevant documents relating to Name of finance company Finance have also been annexed to the written statement of Defendant No. 1.

GROUNDS FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT:-

A. That the plaint does not contain the particulars on the basis of which the relief is claimed by the plaintiffs, and, as per various rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the plaint must contain all necessary particulars, including particulars of all the parties.

B. That in paragraph 2 of the plaint, the plaintiffs have stated that, a few years later, the builder encroached upon the road by raising construction on the roadside and blocked the gali. It is submitted that no date — whether day, month or year — has been mentioned as to when this incident allegedly occurred, and the plaint is therefore liable to be rejected. In contrast, Defendant No. 1 holds the chain of title documents since Year property chain document began, which show that the property measured Area of property (sq yards) sq. yards from that time, and the same was also inspected by the MCD.

C. That, as far as paragraph 5 of the plaint is concerned, no details whatsoever, including any date or DD number of any complaint, have been mentioned by the plaintiffs; the contents of paragraph 5 are therefore false and wrong, and the plaint is liable to be rejected.

D. That the suit is barred by limitation, as the plaintiffs have not approached this Hon'ble Court for the last Number of years of non-approach (limitation) years, whereas Defendant No. 1 holds documents of Number of years of documents held years showing that the built-up area of the property is approximately Approximate build-up area (sq yards) sq. yards. By mere clever drafting, the plaintiffs cannot bring the suit within the period of limitation. It is submitted that the plaintiffs have deliberately refrained from disclosing any date in the plaint, as disclosure would render the suit barred by limitation. It is further submitted that in the present case the complaint was first filed by Defendant No. 1 in the year Year of defendant no. 1's complaint, and it cannot be ignored that this complaint was within the knowledge of the plaintiffs, who nevertheless deliberately did not disclose any date in the plaint. As far as paragraph 12 of the plaint is concerned, no cause of action ever arose in favour of the plaintiffs. Reliance is placed on T. Arivandandam vs T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467, paragraph 5, wherein it was clearly held that clever drafting cannot save the plaintiff. In Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society vs Ponniamman Educational Trust (2012) 8 SCC 706, in paragraph 13, the Court held that while scrutinising the plaint averments, it is the bounden duty of the trial court to ascertain the material of the cause of action. The cause of action is a bundle of facts which, taken with the law applicable to them, gives the right to the plaintiff against the defendant. Every fact which is necessary for the plaintiff to prove to enable him to obtain the decree should be set out in clear terms. It is worthwhile to find out the meaning of the words "cause of action". A cause of action must include some act done by the defendant, since, in the absence of such an act, no cause of action can possibly accrue. In ABC Laminart Pvt. Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies, Salem, it was held that a cause of action means every fact which, if traversed, would be necessary for the plaintiffs to prove in order to support their right to a judgment of the court; it must include some act done by the defendant, since, in the absence of such an act, no cause of action can possibly accrue.

In the case of Sopan Sukhdeo Sable vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner, (2004) 3 SCC 137, it was held that the basic question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 is whether a real cause of action has been set out in the plaint or whether something purely illusory has been stated with a view to getting out of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code.

In Ram Singh vs. Gram Panchayat Mehal Kalan, (1986) 4 SCC 364, the Court held that where a suit is barred by law, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to circumvent that provision by means of clever drafting so as to avoid mentioning the circumstances by which the suit is barred by law.

E. That it is a well-settled principle of law that while considering the question of rejection of plaint, the Court is required to peruse the plaint only, and on a bare perusal if it becomes clear that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action or that the suit is barred by law, the Court is not required to look into any other document, and the suit should be nipped in the bud.

F. That as far as paragraph 12 of the plaint is concerned, the proper valuation of the suit property was not done, nor has the court fee been stated in the said paragraph. That the plaint is liable to be rejected on this ground alone.

G. That while considering this aspect, the Court should be careful to look beyond the clever drafting and see, at the root of the case, whether the plaintiffs have any cause of action or not. The provision for rejection of plaint has been enacted to discourage litigants from flooding the courts with frivolous and vexatious claims. Wherever the Court, even on its own motion, finds a suit to be deficient in having a cause of action, such suit should be rejected so that there is no further abuse of the process of the Court.

H. That the Court can reject a plaint at any stage of the proceedings if it is satisfied that the conditions of the provision are fulfilled. Clever drafting creating illusions of cause of action is not permitted in law, and a clear right to sue must be shown in the plaint. Moreover, the power under Order 7 Rule 11 is not exhaustive, and the Court has inherent powers to see that vexatious litigation is not allowed to take up or consume the time of the Court. It is needless to submit that the provision for rejection of the plaint is mandatory, and the Court is bound to act if the plaint is found to be lacking a cause of action or is debarred from proceeding further by any provision of law.

I. That if that be the position in law, then in the context of the pleadings of the plaintiff, this suit cannot be allowed to proceed further, and the plaint ought to be rejected for having disclosed no cause of action to sue, under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

P R A Y E R

In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to pass an order:

1.Rejecting the plaint as provided for under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in the interest of justice; and

2.Passing such other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Defendant No. 1

Through

Advocate's name & Associates

Advocates for the Defendant No. 1

OFFICE AT: Advocate's office address

Mobile No.: Advocate's mobile number

Advocate's name/signature

DATED: Date of application (day).Date of application (month).Year of application

IN THE COURT OF Name of judge/court

CIVIL CASE NO.OF Year

IN THE MATTER OF:-

Plaintiffs' names…PLAINTIFFS

VERSUS

Defendants' names…DEFENDANTS

APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NO. 1 UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, FOR REJECTION OF THE PLAINT

THE DEFENDANT NO. 1 MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS:

6.That the following table sets out the entire chain of title of the suit property:

SNO	Previous owner	Buyer
1.	Chain entry 1: previous owner	Chain entry 1: buyer

Chain entry 2: previous owner

Chain entry 2: buyer

Chain entry 3: previous owner

Chain entry 3: buyer

Chain entry 4: previous owner

Chain entry 4: buyer

GROUNDS FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT:-

P R A Y E R

In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to pass an order:

1.Rejecting the plaint as provided for under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in the interest of justice; and

2.Passing such other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Defendant No. 1

Through

Advocate's name & Associates

Advocates for the Defendant No. 1

OFFICE AT: Advocate's office address

Mobile No.: Advocate's mobile number

Advocate's name/signature

DATED: Date of application (day).Date of application (month).Year of application

1 / 1

All templates

IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT), DIST. District name, Court complex name COURTS, DELHI.

C.S. (COMM) NO. Commercial suit number OF 20Last digit of year of suit

IN THE MATTER OF:

Plaintiff company name PVT. LTD.: PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

MR. Defendant's name

Proprietor of M/s. Defendant's firm name Trading Company: DEFENDANT

(P.S. Police station number)

AFFIDAVIT UNDER ORDER XI RULE 6(3) OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 READ WITH SECTION 65B OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872

I, Deponent's name, Authorised Representative of M/s. Company name of deponent's employer Pvt. Ltd., having its office at Company office address, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1.That I am the Authorised Representative of the Plaintiff Company in the above-noted suit and am fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case. I am, therefore, competent to swear this affidavit.

Civil applications

Affidavit under Order XI Rule 6(3) Commercial Courts Act read with Section 65B Evidence Act for electronic records

IN THE COURT OF SH. Judge's name

Date of hearingLD. ADJ, SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.

P.C. NO. P.C. number OF 20Year of P.C. number

IN THE MATTER OF :-

Petitioner's name (part 1) Petitioner's name (part 2): PETITIONER

VERSUS

THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS.: RESPONDENTS

N.D.O.H.: Next date of hearing

APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT / RESPONDENT NO. 2 FOR SUMMONING THE WITNESSES AS PER THE LIST OF WITNESSES FILED ON RECORD ON Date of filing the list of witnesses, SO AS TO BRING ON RECORD THE JUDICIAL FILES OF THE CASES REFERRED TO IN THE PRESENT MATTER.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1.That the present probate petition is pending before this Hon'ble Court and is now fixed for Next date of hearing for defense evidence.

2.That on Date of filing the list of witnesses, the Applicant / Respondents No. 2 and 3 filed the list of witnesses in support of their defense in the present case, which was taken on record by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated Date of order taking the list of witnesses on record.

Civil applications

Application by respondent for summoning witnesses with judicial records in probate petition

BEFORE THE HON’BLE Designation of judge JUDGE, Court number COURT, Court location

Applicant's name: APPLICANT

APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, NAMELY Mrs. Applicant's name, SEEKING EXEMPTION FROM PERSONAL APPEARANCE.

Mrs. Applicant's name, aged about Applicant's age years, daughter of Applicant's father's name, wife of Applicant's husband's name, resident of Applicant's address – Applicant's PIN code …Applicant

Versus

First respondent's name and Dr. Second respondent's name …Respondents

Filed onDate of filing

Case No.Case number

It is most respectfully submitted to this Hon’ble Court as under:-

1.That the Applicant is the Petitioner No. 1 in the above-mentioned case.

2.That the Applicant is unable to appear before this Hon’ble Court on account of urgent official work. On this account, the Applicant will not be able to appear before this Hon’ble Court today. The Applicant has conveyed the same to her counsel over telephone and has instructed him to move the present application seeking exemption from personal appearance.

Civil applications