SATISH MOTIANI & ORS. vs T CHOITHRAM FOUNDATION & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 01.12.2025 Judgment pronounced on: 20.12.2025 Judgment uploaded on: 20.12.2025 + FAO(OS) 150/2025, CAV 462/2025, CM APPL. 75079/2025 & CM APPL. 75080/2025 SATISH MOTIANI & ORS. .....Appellants Through: Mr. Amit Sibal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gaurav Khanna, Mr. Gautam Barnwal and Mr. Rudraksh Pandey, Advocates. versus T CHOITHRAM FOUNDATION & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Abhimanyu Mahajan, Ms. Amritananda Chakravorty, Mr. Mihir Samson, Ms. Shreya Munoth, Ms. Asawari Sodhi, Ms. Anubha Goel and Mr. Khush Aalam Singh, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA JUDGMENT ANIL KSHETARPAL, J 1. The present Appeal, preferred under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, challenges the order dated 13.10.2025 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Order’] passed by the learned Single Judge in CS(OS) No. 609/2021. By the Impugned Order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the application filed by the Appellants [Defendants before the learned Single Judge] under Order VII Rule 11 Signature Not Verified Signed By:SAVITA PASRICHA FAO(OS)150/2025 Signing Date:20.12.2025 Page 1 of 11 12:12:54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’] thereby declining to reject the plaint at the threshold. 2. The controversy before this Court pivots on two substantive questions of law: i. Whether a suit instituted on behalf of a Public Trust to protect its properties and administration from alleged usurpers warrants rejection of plaint for want of leave under Section 92 of the CPC; and ii. Whether the plea of limitation, in the face of allegations regarding continuing wrong and successive breaches, can be adjudicated summarily under Order VII Rule