ASHISH KUMAR vs SMT KAMINI KUMAR & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~39 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 18.12.2025 + RFA(OS) 8/2025 and CM APPL. 6785/2025 ASHISH KUMAR .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sujeet Kumar Mishra, Mr. Harsh Kumar Pandey, Advs. versus SMT KAMINI KUMAR & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Manpreet Kaur, Adv. for R-1. Mr. Ashim Vachher, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Saiba Meher Rajpal, Adv. for R-2. Mr Pankaj Balwan, Mr Utkarsh, Advs. for R-3 to 5. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR J U D G M E N T (ORAL) ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. 1. Through the present Appeal, the Appellant assails the correctness of the order dated 21.10.2024 [hereinafter referred to as „Impugned Order‟] passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the Plaint filed by the Appellant [Plaintiff before the learned Single Judge] was rejected on the first date of hearing under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as „CPC‟]. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties before this Court shall Signature Not Verified Signed By:SAVITA PASRICHA Signing Date:20.12.2025RFA(OS) 8/2025 Page 1 of 7 14:56:21 be referred to in accordance with their status before the learned Single Judge. 3. From a perusal of the Impugned Order, it emerges that the learned Single Judge rejected the plaint primarily on the following grounds: i. that the Plaint was not maintainable in view of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 [hereinafter referred to as „SRA‟]; ii. that there existed a demarcating dividing line with respect to the roof/terrace rights over the second floor of the property bearing No. 35, Anand Lok, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as „suit property‟] between the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1; and iii. that the Plaintiff had no cause of a