Lalit Mohan Vs Shailender

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the captioned petition was filed on account of the fact that the respondent had moved an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC before the learned Family Court. The petition was disposed of on 12.01.2026 in the following manner:

¶18

“1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

¶19

The present petition under Section 24 of the CPC seeks the following prayers:-

¶20

This is a digitally signed order.

¶21

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 23/04/2026 at 12:46:04

¶22

“I. Pass an order transferring divorce petition filed under Section 13 (1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act from the Court of Sh. Devender Kumar, Ltd. Principal Judge, Family Court, District Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi to the Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, District East, Karkardooma Courts in the interest of justice and saving precious judicial time.

¶23

II. Pass such Further orders which this Hon’ble Court may deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.”

¶24

It is pointed out that an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC read with Section 151 of the CPC has already been preferred by the respondent and the same is still pending before the learned Family Court with the following prayer:-

¶25

“In the circumstances mentioned above it is therefore be prayed that your honour be pleased to reject the plaint as provided for under the provision of order 7 rule 11 of cpc. And to pass such other order as deemed fit and proper, in the interest of justice.”

¶26

In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a request to the learned Family Court to decide the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed on behalf of the respondent as expeditiously as possible.

¶27

The present petition is disposed of.

¶28

The rights and contentions of the parties are left open.

¶29

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.”

¶30

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that although the nomenclature of the application is under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC, however the only objection raised by the respondent is with respect to the territorial jurisdiction.

¶31

This is a digitally signed order.

¶32

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 23/04/2026 at 12:46:04

¶33

In these circumstances, it is submitted that in case the learned Family Court is of the opinion that the jurisdiction is not made out, then the plaint may be returned to the petitioner which would cause serious prejudice.

¶34

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent enters appearance and submits that till date no reply has been filed by the petitioner to the application filed on behalf of the respondent before the learned Family Court.

¶35

Be that as it may, with the consent of the parties, the following directions are being passed: i) The petitioner shall file a reply raising the aforesaid contention(s) before the learned Family Court.

¶36

ii) If the learned Family Court is of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction is not made out then the reasonable opportunity will be given to the petitioner to move to this Court under Section 24 of the CPC.

¶37

In view of the above, the present application is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.

¶38

AMIT SHARMA, J

¶39

APRIL 20, 2026/ kr/ah

¶40

This is a digitally signed order.

¶41

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 23/04/2026 at 12:46:04

Lalit Mohan v. Shailender

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalit Mohan v. Shailender

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Sk Sanitation Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Modern It Solutions LLP

Puneet Gupta Vs Icici Securities Limited

Rakesh Sehgal Vs Ravinder Sehgal (Since Decd)Thr Lr and Ors.

Veena Devi (Since Deceased through Lrs) Vs Rani Devi & Anr.

Hritik Verma & Anr. Vs Ritu Singh Chauhan & Ors.

M/S Shreeji Polyfab Private Limited Vs M/S Goldstone International

Mahesh Chand Sharma Vs Khan Chand Mehta

Abhishek Rastogi Vs Sachin Sharma

Angul Energy Limited Formerily Known as Bhushan Energy Limited Vs Ministry of Corporate Affairs, through Secretary & Anr.

Anil Aneja Vs Kishan Chand Goelthrough Legal Heirs

M/S Sk Sanitation Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Modern It Solutions LLP

Gulshan Khurana (Since Deceased) through Legal Heirs Vs Subhash Chand Gupta

Jyoti Devi Vs Rakesh Dahiya

Jagdish Prasad & Anr. Vs Sanjeev Jain