A. ANAND vs ARUNA

Judgment text excerpt

$~71 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 18th February, 2026 + CM(M) 391/2026 A. ANAND .....Petitioner Through: Petitioner in person (through VC). versus ARUNA .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA ORDER (Oral) Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. This hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode. CM APPL. 11201/2026 (for exemption) 2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of. CM(M) 391/2026 & CM APPL. 11202/2026 (for stay) 3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, assailing the order dated 25th September, 2024, passed by the learned trial court in case bearing no. CS SCJ 549/23, whereby the application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) has been dismissed. 4. Heard. Record perused. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the plaint is liable to be rejected as it does not disclose a cause of action and also suffers from non-joinder of a necessary party, namely, Mr. Chandra Shekhar (husband of Signature Not Verified Signed By:NAMITA CM(M) 391/2026 Page 1 of 4 DHYANI Signing Date:18.02.2026 16:58:17 the respondent). 6. It is settled law that at the stage of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the averments made in the plaint are germane and the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement are irrelevant at that stage. In this context, it is relevant herein to refer the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal, (2017) 13 SCC 174, which is reproduced as follows: “7. The plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 if conditions enumerated in the said provision ar