Allowed¶58

Richa Tiwari v. Kumar Sambhav Mishra & Ors.

Delhi HC14 Nov 2025RFA(OS)/44/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rejection of plaint; Order VII Rule 11 CPC enumerated clauses (a)-(f); contradictory stand in plaints; concealment/suppression of material facts not ground for rejection; Section 151 CPC inherent powers cannot bypass specific provision; Order XII Rule 6 CPC judgment on admissions inapplicable; appellate court confined to impugned order; partition suit CS(OS) No.72/2022; CS No.1504/2021; property Kishan Ganj, Delhi; suit restored; RFA(OS) 44/2025; RFA(OS) 46/2025; Delhi High Court 14.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

Appeals allowed; Impugned Order dated 23.04.2025 set aside and the suit restored to its original number before the learned Single Judge; parties directed to appear before the learned Single Judge [Roster Bench] on 26.11.2025 ¶58

Richa Tiwari Vs Kumar Sambhav Mishra & Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶58

Issue for consideration

Whether a plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the grounds of a contradictory stand taken by the plaintiffs or concealment of material facts. +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

Concealment of material facts or a contradictory stand are not grounds for rejection of a plaint.

¶49

Ratio / Principle

At the stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court is required to consider the assertions made in the plaint.

¶49

Key takeaways

The Impugned Order did not find the plaint liable to be rejected as per clauses (a) to (f) of Order VII Rule 11 CPC.ratio¶49
Once there is a specific provision enabling the Court to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, resort to Section 151 CPC would not be appropriate.ratio¶51
Order XII Rule 6 CPC, being in the context of a judgment based upon admissions, is not applicable in the present case.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Division Bench: Anil Kshetarpal & Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, JJ.; judgment authored by Anil Kshetarpal, J.), decision dated 14.11.2025, allowed RFA(OS) 44/2025 (Richa Tiwari) and RFA(OS) 46/2025 (Vandana Dixit) v. Kumar Sambhav Mishra & Ors., challenging a common Order dated 23.04.2025 in I.A. No.40283/2024 in CS(OS) No.72/2022 whereby the learned Single Judge rejected their plaint (partition suit over property at Municipal No.8642, Ward No.XVI, Gali Gopal Wali, Gaushala Marg, Kishan Ganj, Delhi) under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on grounds of a contradictory stand across plaints (CS(OS) 72/2022 and CS No.1504/2021) and concealment of material facts. Held: (i) concealment of material facts or contradictory stand are not grounds for rejection of a plaint, and the Impugned Order did not find the plaint liable to rejection under clauses (a) to (f) of Order VII Rule 11; (ii) at the Order VII Rule 11 stage the Court considers the assertions made in the plaint; (iii) once a specific provision enables rejection of a plaint, resort to Section 151 CPC is not appropriate; (iv) Order XII Rule 6 CPC (judgment on admissions) is inapplicable. Appeals allowed; impugned order set aside; suit restored to the learned Single Judge; parties to appear on 26.11.2025.

¶1

$~21 & 22

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of decision: 14.11.2025

¶4

RFA(OS) 44/2025, CM APPL. 44854/2025 (Stay) & CM APPL. 44855/2025 (Ex. from filing certified copy of the impugned order)

¶5

RICHA TIWARI

¶6

.....Appellant

¶7

Through: Appearance not given

¶8

versus

¶9

KUMAR SAMBHAV MISHRA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. A.P.S Ahluwalia, Senior Advocate with Mr. S.S. Ahluwalia and Ms. Rimpy Rohilla, Advocates

¶10

¶11

RFA(OS) 46/2025, CM APPL. 45187/2025 (Stay) & CM APPL. 45188/2025 (Ex. from filing certified copy of the impugned order)

¶12

VANDANA DIXIT

¶13

.....Appellant

¶14

Through: Appearance not given

¶15

versus

¶16

KUMAR SAMBHAV MISHRA & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. A.P.S Ahluwalia, Senior Advocate with Mr. S.S. Ahluwalia and Ms. Rimpy Rohilla, Advocates

¶17

CORAM:

¶18

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

¶19

Signature Not Verified

¶20

Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date: 17.1 1.2025 RFA(OS) 44/2025 & RFA(OS) 46/2025 Page 12:41:57

¶21

1 of 5

¶22

% JUDGEMENT (ORAL)

¶23

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

¶24

These two Appeals assail a common Judgment and Order dated 23.04.2025¹ in I.A. No.40283/2024 in CS(OS) No.72/2022 passed by the learned Single Judge. Since both Appeals arise out of the same Impugned Judgment and Order, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common Order. 2. The Appellants/Plaintiffs therein assail the correctness of the Impugned Order, by way of which the learned Single Judge has rejected their plaint in exercise of power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908² .

¶25

The Plaintiffs and Respondents/Defendants therein are children of late Shri Jagdish Prasad, who, upon his demise, left behind as many as 5 children as his legal heirs. Plaintiffs, namely, the two daughters, filed a suit for partition of the suit property located at property bearing Municipal No.8642, Ward No.XVI, Gali Gopal Wali, Gaushala Marg, Kishan Ganj, Delhi, admeasuring 178 Sq. Yds. (earlier known as Plot No.115/5, Block No.67B Bagh Roji-III, Delhi)³ .

¶26

An application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC was filed by the Defendants. The learned Single Judge allowed the said application on the following two grounds:

¶27

i. The Plaintiffs have taken a contradictory stand in the plaint filed before this Court in Civil Suit bearing No. CS(OS) 72/2022 and CS No.1504/2021. CS No.1504/2021 was

¶28

1 Impugned Order

¶29

2 CPC

¶30

3 Suit Property

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date: 17.1 1.2025 12:41:57

¶33

RFA(OS) 44/2025 & RFA(OS) 46/2025 Page 2 of 5

¶34

preferred by Defendant No.3 and is with respect to property bearing Flat No. 251, Upper Ground Floor, Nagin Lake Apartment, Paschim Vihar, Delhi.

¶35

ii. The Plaintiffs have concealed the material facts from the Court.

¶36

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and, with their able assistance, have perused the paperbook.

¶37

At the outset, it is of import to note the enabling power of the Court under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as circumscribed under clauses A to F, which read as under:

¶38

“11. Rejection of plaint .— The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:—

¶39

( a ) where it does not disclose a cause of action;

¶40

( 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;

¶41

( c ) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written 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;

¶42

( d ) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;

¶43

( e ) where it is not filed in duplicate.

¶44

[( f ) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9];

¶45

[Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-papers 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 from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-papers, 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.]”

¶46

Signature Not Verified

¶47

Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date: 17.1 1.2025 12:41:57

¶48

RFA(OS) 44/2025 & RFA(OS) 46/2025 Page 3 of 5

¶49

A perusal of the provision extracted herein above would demonstrate that concealment of material facts or contradictory stand are not the grounds for rejection of a plaint. At the stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court is required to consider the assertions made in in the plaint. It is evident from reading of the Impugned Order that the Court has not found that the Plaint is liable to be rejected as per Clauses A to F listed above.

¶50

Learned counsel for the Respondent has submitted that this Court should exercise powers under Section 151 of the CPC or, in the alternative, under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.

¶51

This Court has considered the submissions advanced by the parties. The Impugned Order has been passed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Once there is a specific provision enabling the Court to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, resort to Section 151 CPC would not be appropriate.

¶52

Further, Order XII Rule 6 CPC is in the context of a Judgment based upon admissions, which would not be applicable in the present case.

¶53

While deciding the Appeal against an Order passed by the Court, it is not expected from the Appellate Court to travel beyond the Impugned Order passed. Even otherwise, the Respondents/Defendants therein are not precluded from taking all these objections in their defence before the learned Single Judge. However, rejection of the plaint on the ground of concealment of facts or contradictory stand, which, according to the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents, amounts to abuse of process of the Court, are not the grounds enlisted

¶54

Signature Not Verified

¶55

Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date: 17.1 1.2025 12:41:57

¶56

RFA(OS) 44/2025 & RFA(OS) 46/2025 Page 4 of 5

¶57

for rejection of the plaint and accordingly, the plaint of the Appellants could not have been rejected on these grounds.

¶58

In view of the above, the present Appeal is allowed and the Impugned Order dated 23.04.2025 is set aside. Accordingly, the Suit shall stand restored to its original number before the learned Single Judge.

¶59