Delhi District Court
Rajender Kumar vs Mcd And Ors on 28 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIL ANTIL, DISTRICT JUDGE-15,
CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
CNR No.DLCT01-009771-2024
RCA DJ No.100/2024
Index to the Appeal
Serial No. Rajender Kumar vs. Page Nos.
MCD and Ors.
1. FACTS 3 to 5
2. GROUNDS OF APPEAL 5 to 7
3. REPLY 7 to 8
4. ON MERITS 9 to 15
5. CONCLUSION 15
Rajender Kumar
S/o. Late Sh. Banwari Lal
R/o. H. No. 21/34, Mukim Pura,
Subzi Mandi, Delhi-110007.
...Appellant
Versus
1. MCD
Through its Commissioner
S.P.M. Civil Centre, J.L.N. Marg,
New Delhi-110002.
2. Sh. Lala Ram
S/o. Sh. Chet Ram
R/o. H. No. 445, Robin Cinema Wali Gali,
RCA DJ No. 100/2024 Rajender KumarVs. MCD and Ors. Page No. 1 of 15
Old Subzi Mandi, Delhi-110007.
3. Sh. Sanjay
S/o. Sh. Pyare Lal
R/o. H. No. 445, Robin Cinema Wali Gali,
Old Subzi Mandi, Delhi-110007.
4. Smt. Sunita
S/o. Late Sh. Narain Singh
R/o. 46/A1, Chottee More Sarai,
Railway Colony, Delhi-110006.
5. Smt. Kusum Saini
W/o. Sh. Virendra Saini
R/o. New Stolling Building, Ground Floor,
Room No.6, Isri Hasanabad Gali,
Shanti Kunj West, Mumbai-54.
...Respondents
DATE OF FILING OF APPEAL : 04.07.2024
DATE OF RESERVING ORDER : 04.08.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 28.08.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal U/s. 96 r/w Order 41 r/w Section 151 of CPC against the impugned order dated 16.04.2024 passed by the Court of Ld. ASCJ (Central), THC, Delhi in Civil Suit bearing CS SCJ No. 269/2023, titled as Rajender Kumar vs. MCD and Ors., whereby the plaint of the appellant/plaintiff was rejected under Order 7 R 11 (a) CPC, without giving any opportunity of being heard to the plaintiff or his Counsel.
RCA DJ No. 100/2024 Rajender KumarVs. MCD and Ors. Page No. 2 of 15 FACTS OF THE APPEAL
2. That the appellant/plaintiff filed a civil suit bearing CS SCJ No. 269/2013 titled as Rajender Kumar vs. MCD and Ors., against the respondents/defendants for permanent and mandatory injunction alongwith recovery of dispossessed property.
3. That the plaintiff/appellant alongwith his family members had been residing in property bearing no. 453, Bada Naksha, Old Subzi Mandi, Delhi-110007 from the past about 70 years.
4. That he further stated that the officials of the defendant no.1/MCD, in connivance with the defendant no.2 & 3, punctured the said property and later on, demolished the ground floor portion of the said property without any valid reason with the sole motive to get the property vacated from the plaintiff/appellant.
5. That at the time of demolition of the property on dated 03.09.2022, the wife of the plaintiff was present in the suit property.
6. That the respondents/defendant no.2 & 3 are in touch with local real estate agent for sale of the disputed building and due to this, many times, they offered money to the plaintiff also, to vacate the building.
RCA DJ No. 100/2024 Rajender KumarVs. MCD and Ors. Page No. 3 of 15
7. That after illegal demolition of the said property, the defendant no.2 & 3/respondents started carrying out illegal and unauthorized construction in the said property, and they are also trying to sell or handover the said property to some other person.
8. That with this factual background, the original suit was filed by the appellant/plaintiff for permanent and mandatory injunction alongwith recovery of dispossessed property with the reliefs :-
That defendant no.2 & 3/respondents be restrained from carrying out illegal and unauthorized construction in the said property without proper sanctioned site plan and further direct them not to sell or handover the disputed property to any other person in any manner and;
That the defendant no.2 & 3 be further directed to handover the dispossessed property to the plaintiff.
9. That the plaintiff has also filed an application under order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC with the prayer to direct the defendant no.2 & 3 from carrying out further illegal and unauthorized construction in the said property without proper sanctioned site plan and further direct them not to sell the said property and not to dispose off the said property.
RCA DJ No. 100/2024 Rajender KumarVs. MCD and Ors. Page No. 4 of 15
10. That on receipt of the summons of the Court, the defendants put appearance and filed their written statement and reply to the application under order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC.
11. That in the WS, it was stated that the demolition was carried out by the defendant no.1/MCD after giving notices u/s. 348 and 349 of DMC Act as the building was dilapidated condition and dangerous for inhabitants.
12. That the building in question stands demolished by the MCD;
it is a vacant plot; no construction, must to say, unauthorized or illegal construction is being carried out by the defendant no.2 & 3; the plaintiff were having permissible possession of the premises and were never inducted as the tenant therein.
13. That the plaint is misleading and premises on false facts and prayed for the dismissal of the suit.
14. That on 16.02.2024, further status report was called from the defendant no.1/MCD and the matter was adjourned to 16.04.2024.
15. That on 16.04.2024, neither the plaintiff nor his Counsel was present in the Court but the Court rejected the suit of the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) CPC vide order dated 16.04.2024 and the file was consigned to record room.
16. That being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 16.04.2024, the appellant/plaintiff filed the present appeal on the following grounds :-
RCA DJ No. 100/2024 Rajender KumarVs. MCD and Ors. Page No. 5 of 15
(i) That the Ld. Trial Court has passed the impugned order contrary to settled law and against the admitted and true facts of the case.
(ii) That the Ld. Trial Court has passed the impugned order in the absence of the plaintiff and his Counsel in violation of the principles of Natural Justice, Equity and fair play.
(iii) That the Ld. Trial Court did not consider the fact that the plaintiff and his family members were in possession of the property since past 70 years and their possession was admitted by the defendant no.2 & 3 in their written statement.
(iv) That the Ld. Trial Court did not consider the fact that the plaintiff did not receive any notice from MCD under section 348/349 DMC Act at any point of time.
(v) That the Ld. Trial Court did not consider the fact that the notice was issued by the MCD in connivance with the defendant no.2 & 3 as the same was issued on the complaint of the defendant no.2 only who wanted the property to be vacated from the plaintiff by adopting any means.
(vi) That the Ld. Trial Court has failed to take notice of the documents filed by the plaintiff alongwith his plaint to show his possession over the said property viz. (1) Ration card of the father of the plaintiff of the suit property (2) Aadhaar Card of the plaintiff, his wife, his 4 sons and his daughter (3) Election i-card of the plaintiff, his wife and his mother which was issued on 23.01.1995. (4) Electricity meter in the name of father of the plaintiff namely Banwari Lal which was installed on 20.07.1993 in the said property and till date the said electricity meter was installed in the said property and plaintiff was paying electricity bills of the same. (5) photographs dated 03.09.2022 and 06.09.2022 filed by the plaintiff.
(vii) That the Ld. Trial Court did not consider the fact that even if the MCD demolish the property, the possessory rights of the plaintiff cannot be taken away by the acts of the MCD. The Ld. Court failed to consider that the plaintiff and his family are in the constructive possession of the property in question.
(viii) That the Ld. Trial Court totally ignored the fact that defendants have no right to dispossess the plaintiff and his family members without due process of law.
(ix) That the Ld. Trial Court did not consider the fact that no site plan has been sanctioned to the respondent no.2 & 3 by the RCA DJ No. 100/2024 Rajender KumarVs. MCD and Ors. Page No. 6 of 15 respondent no.1 and they are carrying on illegal and unauthorized construction over the said property.
(x) That the Ld. Trial Court did not consider that the defendant no.2 & 3 are under statutory duty to restore the plaintiff and his family in the said property which was got demolished in connivance with the defendant no.1.
(xi) That the Ld. Trial Court did not consider and appreciate the prayer clause of the plaint. Even if the relief of permanent injunction is not given to the plaintiff, even then the relief as mentioned in para no.3 of the prayer clause can be granted to the plaintiff after putting the suit on trial. The Ld. Court could have granted an opportunity to the plaintiff to amend his plaint and sought the relief of Declaration also as has been mentioned in the Judgment of Anathula Sudhakar Vs P. Buchi Reddy by LRs & Ors., AIR 2008 SC 2033. Moreover the Judgment as quoted by the Ld. Court is not applicable on the case in hand, but the Ld. Court passed the impugned order very hurriedly.
(xii) That the Ld. Trial Court did not apply its judicial mind and has failed to appreciate the facts of the present case and has passed the impugned orders on surmises and conjectures which is contrary to the factual position of the case and documents submitted by the plaintiff alongwith the plaint.
(xiii) That there is delay of 46 days in filing the present appeal for which the appellant has moved an application for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal.
17. That it is prayed that the impugned order dated 16.04.2024 may kindly be set aside.
REPLY TO THE APPEAL FILED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3
18. That the present appeal is time bared and liable to be dismissed. The application seeking condonation of delay of 46 days in filing the present appeal is berefit of any sufficient cause, an essential requirement for condoning the delay as mandated by section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
RCA DJ No. 100/2024 Rajender KumarVs. MCD and Ors. Page No. 7 of 15
19. That the appellant has deliberately and intentionally put entire blame for non appearance on the given date before the ld. Trial Court on his previous Counsel with the intent to mislead the Court.
20. That there is no proof of the alleged negligence of the previous lawyer on the record. There is also nothing on the record that the appellant had made any. complaint against the previous lawyer for his negligence to any concerned authority.
21. That the conduct of appellant/plaintiff is in contravention of Order III Rule 4 which provides that every appointment of counsel shall be deemed to be in force until determined with the leave of the court by the writing signed by the client or his pleader as the case may be and filed in court or until the client or the pleader dies or until all the proceedings in the suit are ended so far as regards the client.
22. Besides that oral arguments were addressed on the merits of the appeal stating that there is no illegality or ambiguity in the impugned order passed by the ld. Trial Court, and the grounds so taken in the WS were raised by the respondents/defendants for dismissal of the appeal.
23. The Court has heard the arguments addressed by all the parties and perused the judicial file.
RCA DJ No. 100/2024 Rajender KumarVs. MCD and Ors. Page No. 8 of 15
24. The delay, in the interest of justice, in filing the appeal stands condoned in view of the averments made in the application and the submissions advanced by the ld. Counsel for the appellant.
ON MERITS
25. The "ingredients," or grounds, for rejecting a plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) are mentioned herein under :-
Lack of Cause of Action (a):
The plaint fails to disclose a cause of action, meaning the facts stated do not provide a legal basis for the plaintiff's claim.
Under-Valuation (b) The relief sought in the plaint is inadequately valued for court fee purposes, and the plaintiff fails to rectify this deficiency within the time allowed by the court.
Insufficient Stamp Duty (c) The plaint is insufficiently stamped and the plaintiff fails to make up the deficit within the period specified by the court. Barred by Law (d) The suit appears from the statements in the plaint to be barred by any law in force, such as being time-barred by the statute of limitations.
Plaint not filed in the duplicate (e) fails to comply Rule 9 (f), and RCA DJ No. 100/2024 Rajender KumarVs. MCD and Ors. Page No. 9 of 15 Frivolous or Vexatious The suit is frivolous or vexatious, meaning it is intended to harass the defendant or waste the court's time, rather than seeking a genuine legal remedy.
26. Coming to the case at hand, at the outset, it is stated that the plaint lacks in specific and material details, wherein the averments/pleadings are not in consonance with the reliefs so sought by the plaintiff in his plaint.
27. The plaintiff claims himself to be the tenant in the premises, through his father, but no documents of any nature to show the tenancy between the plaintiff or his father and the defendant no.2 have been filed in support thereof.
28. The Ration card, Aadhar card and other documents, though reflects the address of the suit premises but they are also of no assistance to the case of the plaintiff to show the terms and conditions of tenancy, if any.
29. No specific details are provided when and how the tenancy had accrued in favour of the plaintiff or his father. There is no mention of what rent is/was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant no.2, if any, or its specific duration. The claim of the plaintiff of tenancy is premised on vague allegations.
30. Nextly, admittedly, the plaintiff is not in possession of his suit premises, wherein he himself claims possession from the defendants in terms of his prayer clause (3) i.e. " respondent RCA DJ No. 100/2024 Rajender KumarVs. MCD and Ors. Page No. 10 of 15 no.2 and 3 peacefully handover the dispossessed property to the plaintiff". (seems to be inadvertently mentioned as respondents instead of defendants)
31. So, when the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit premises and there is serious cloud over his claim of tenancy of the premises, as rightly observed by the ld. Trial Court, in terms of Anathula Sudhakar Vs P. Buchi Reddy by LRs & Ors., AIR 2008 SC 2033, a suit simplicitor seeking possession without a consequential relief of declaration qua his title or status is not maintainable and the plaint is liable to be rejected as barred by law.
32. The main grievances, in terms of the prayer sought by the plaintiff, seem to be the unauthorized construction on the suit premises for and on behalf of defendant no.2 and 3.
33. A status report was called by the ld. Trial Court in that regard wherein the MCD alongwith its status report has placed photographs of the suit property to state that after demolition of the building/structure, no construction is being carried out on the said plot, and MCD had demolished it after giving due notice, when the building was found to be 'dangerous' for inhabitance.
34. Further, the relief sought by the plaintiff for permanent injunction in terms of his prayer clause (1) and (2) are hypothetical in nature, in anticipation of an alleged act of RCA DJ No. 100/2024 Rajender KumarVs. MCD and Ors. Page No. 11 of 15 unauthorized construction which the defendants may commit in future. Such a relief is just an illusory and cannot be granted in the given facts.
35. I may also state that with respect to unauthorized construction, if any, the defendant no.2 and 3 being owner of the property as per the admitted position of the plaintiff, the plaintiff cannot have any right to file the said suit against the defendants in the given facts.
36. Needless to say that the defendant no.1/MCD is empowered and duty bound to take action as per MCD Act and by-laws for any unauthorized/illegal construction under its jurisdiction, if any.
37. Further, it is an undisputed position that the suit property already stands demolished by the MCD, after giving due notices dated 24.08.2023 and 30.08.2023 to the occupants/owner u/s. 348 and 349 of the DMC Act, as the suit property was under the category of "dangerous" and the maintenance department of MCD had thereafter taken action and demolished it.
38. The notice u/s. 348 r/w 349 of DMC Act were duly served upon the occupants of the building prior to its demolition by the MCD, but none had challenged the said notices. Infact, as per its own case of the plaintiff, his wife was duly present on 03.09.2022 when the demolition was carried out by the MCD.
RCA DJ No. 100/2024 Rajender KumarVs. MCD and Ors. Page No. 12 of 15
39. The demolition proceedings if it were illegal or in contravention to DMC Act and Rules have also not been challenged by the plaintiff/appellant herein.
40. And significantly, the appellant/plaintiff has also not claimed any damages for the injury, if any, caused to him by the acts of defendants or if there was any breach of agreement or his tenancy.
41. In so far as the question of not being heard by the ld. Trial Court is concerned, it is trite to state that the Court is competent to suo moto exercise its power under Order VII R 11 CPC if it finds that the plaint falls within the ambit of provisions thereto.
42. Moreover, the trial Court record reflects that the plaintiff was present on the date prior to the date of the impugned order, and was well aware about the status of his case and the fact that the ld. Trial Court had called for status report from the MCD concerned regarding demolition of the property in question.
43. It was the fault of the plaintiff that he failed to appear to pursue his case on the given date, and why and for what reason, no convincing or plausible explanation is forthcoming.
44. The impugned order of the ld. Trial Court is premised upon and confined to the averments of the plaint and the status RCA DJ No. 100/2024 Rajender KumarVs. MCD and Ors. Page No. 13 of 15 report so filed by the MCD. So, this Court does not find much merits in the submissions of the Counsel for appellant in that regard.
45. Further, once the suit property itself does not exist, no enforceable right can arise in favour of the appellant/tenant to that property in respect of it. No reliefs thereby of permanent mandatory injunction can be granted to the appellant/plaintiff/tenant in terms of the prayer and averments so made.
46. The plaint does not disclose a valid cause of action for possession or injunction. The plaint is thereby liable to be rejected U/O. VII R 11(a) for lack of cause of action.
47. At this stage, a profitable reference is made to the case titled as Sopan Sukhdeo Sable vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner, (2004)3 SCC 137, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the plaint must be rejected where the relief cannot be granted on the admitted facts.
48. Herein, the appellant/plaintiff is seeking possession with injunction in respect of non existent property, which admittedly stands demolished even prior to filing of the present suit, the reliefs thereby so claimed by the plaintiff in terms of plaint are illusory and misconceived based upon assumptions and presumptions.
RCA DJ No. 100/2024 Rajender KumarVs. MCD and Ors. Page No. 14 of 15
49. A useful reference be also made to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T. Arvindadandan vs. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasized that frivolous and vexatious plaints without cause of action should be rejected at the threshold.
50. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the plaint fails to disclose a valid cause of action, entitling the plaintiff to any relief, within the ambit of Order VII R 11(a) CPC, and the suit also appears to be barred by law under VII R 11(d) CPC.
CONCLUSION
51. Thus, this Court finds no ambiguity or illegality in the impugned order dated 16.04.2024 passed by the ld. Trial Court and the plaint in the present form is liable to be rejected not only under Order VII R 11 (a) and (d), but also it being frivolous and vexatious, and for being vague lacking in specific & material details.
52. The appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff stands dismissed.
Announced in the open Court
on 28th August, 2025 (ANIL ANTIL)
DISTRICT JUDGE-15
CENTRAL/THC/DELHI
Digitally signed 28.08.2025
ANIL by ANIL ANTIL
Date:
2025.08.28
ANTIL 14:20:56
+0530
RCA DJ No. 100/2024 Rajender KumarVs. MCD and Ors. Page No. 15 of 15