Delhi District Court
Sahil Gupta vs Subhash Gupta And Ors on 23 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUMIT DALAL
DISTRICT JUDGE - 04 : SOUTH WEST DISTRICT
DWARKA COURTS : NEW DELHI
RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ: 98/2025
CNR: DLSW01-006930-2025
SH. SAHIL GUPTA
S/O SH. SUBASH GUPTA
R/O: FIRST FLOOR,
PLOT NO. 485-486,
SECTOR - 19, DWARKA,
DELHI - 110075
....APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. SH. SUBHASH GUPTA
S/O LATE RAM KUMAR GUPTA
R/O: H.NO. 427, BHERA ENCLAVE,
PASCHIM VIHAR,
NEW DELHI - 110041
ALSO AT
DHL, NEW TOWN,
SECTOR - 27A, ROHTAK
HARYANA - 124001
2. INVESTIGATING OFFICER
EOW, SP OFFICE, ROHTAK,
HARYANA
3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
ROHTAK, HARYANA
....RESPONDENT
DATE OF INSTITUTION OF APPEAL : 06.08.2025
DATE OF ARGUMENTS : 23.01.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 23.01.2026
RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ: 98/2025 Page 1 of 21
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal assails the order dated 21.05.2025 passed by the Ld. Civil Judge-01, South-West, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, whereby the plaint in Civil Suit No. 583/25 filed by the appellant (plaintiff) for declaration and permanent injunction came to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC on the ground that it does not disclose any cause of action and is a vexatious and abusive litigation.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant at length. In exercise of powers under Order XLI Rule 11 CPC, and in view of the purely legal nature of the controversy turning on the maintainability of the suit on the plaint averments alone, I do not consider it necessary to issue notice to the respondents at this stage.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to by their nomenclature before the Ld. Trial Court as "plaintiff" and "defendants".
I. PLAINTIFF'S CASE AS PLEADED
4. The plaintiff pleads that he is the son of defendant no. 1, Subhash Gupta, but that he has had a strained relationship with him for more than two years and has no contact with him. He asserts that defendant no. 1 is involved in a project styled "DHL, New Town, Sector-27A, Rohtak, Haryana" and is facing multiple RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ: 98/2025 Page 2 of 21 complaints from various persons alleging cheating and fraud in relation to that project.
5. The grievance of the plaintiff is that for the last several months he has been receiving WhatsApp messages, phone calls and notices from unknown persons as well as from defendant nos. 2 and 3 (police authorities at Rohtak) in connection with complaints made against defendant no. 1. It is alleged that defendant nos. 2 and 3 have addressed letters and notices to the plaintiff, pressurising him to make payments to the complainants and requiring him to join investigation in complaints registered at Rohtak, including complaint No. 159-Pesi dated 30.01.2025 and complaint No. 70-SP dated 12.03.2025.
6. The plaintiff categorically states that:
a. he has no role whatsoever in the aforesaid DHL project at Rohtak;
b. he has never visited the project site;
c. he has never received any money or benefit out of the said project; and d. he is running his own independent business and has no business connection with defendant no. 1 or his activities.
7. It is further averred that:
RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ: 98/2025 Page 3 of 21a. the plaintiff's mother had filed matrimonial cases against defendant no. 1 and has obtained a mutual consent divorce decree from the Tis Hazari Courts;
b. the plaintiff's wife has lodged a CAW Cell complaint against defendant no. 1 alleging molestation and domestic violence; and c. due to the acts of defendant no. 1, the plaintiff and his other family members are being harassed and humiliated by defendant nos. 2 and 3 and some "goonda type elements", including alleged telephonic threats to the plaintiff for payment of money.
8. The plaintiff also asserts that he has caused a publication in a newspaper to the effect that he has no relations with defendant no. 1, in order to safeguard himself from the consequences of defendant no. 1's alleged acts. On these averments, the plaintiff has sought the following reliefs:
a. A decree of declaration in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant no. 1 that the plaintiff has no concern with the acts of defendant no. 1 in his DHL project at Rohtak. b. A decree of declaration that the plaintiff is not responsible for the acts of defendant no. 1.
c. A decree of declaration that defendant nos. 2 and 3 will not harass and humiliate the plaintiff for each and every complaint received by them against defendant no. 1 and his family members.RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ: 98/2025 Page 4 of 21
d. A permanent and mandatory injunction restraining defendant nos. 2 and 3 from restraining the plaintiff from moving or shifting from one place to another.
e. Any other relief deemed fit.
II. IMPUGNED ORDER
9. The Ld. Civil Judge, after reproducing the plaint averments and the text of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, relied upon the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in, inter alia, Kum. Geeta D/o Late Krishna v. Nanjundaswamy (Civil Appeal No. 7413 of 2023) to summarise the law that a plaint can and should be rejected at the threshold if it does not disclose a cause of action, is barred by law, or is a sham/illusory litigation dressed up by clever drafting.
10. Applying these principles, the Ld. Trial Court concluded that:
a. the suit is essentially an attempt by the plaintiff to obtain a blanket declaration that he is not responsible for any acts of defendant no. 1 and to pre-empt or thwart the lawful functioning of the police authorities (defendant nos. 2 and 3) in respect of complaints made to them;
b. the reliefs claimed are vague, over-broad and not founded on any legally enforceable right or legal character cognisable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963;RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ: 98/2025 Page 5 of 21
c. the plaint, even if taken at face value, does not disclose any cause of action that could result in a decree; and d. the suit is vexatious and an abuse of the process of law and, therefore, the plaint merits rejection under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC.
11. On this basis, the plaint was rejected and the file was ordered to be consigned to the record room.
III. GROUNDS OF APPEAL (IN SUBSTANCE)
12. The appellant, in his memorandum of appeal, urges, inter alia, the following grounds:
a. The impugned order is mechanical, ignores the material on record and has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. b. The suit discloses a clear cause of action: the plaintiff is being repeatedly summoned and harassed for acts of his father in which he has no involvement, and he is entitled to a declaration of non-liability and consequential injunction. c. The Ld. Trial Court erred in invoking Order VII Rule 11 CPC without issuing notice to the defendants; rejection of plaint at the threshold without notice is said to violate principles of natural justice and fair procedure under Article 14 of the Constitution.
d. The Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the plaint, read as a whole, raises triable issues regarding the plaintiff's non-involvement and non-liability in respect of the acts of RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ: 98/2025 Page 6 of 21 defendant no. 1 and that the question whether he can be saddled with liability for his father's alleged fraud is a substantial civil issue.
e. Reliance is placed on decisions such as G. Nagaraj v. B.P. Mruthunjayanna CIVIL APPEAL NO.2737 OF 2023, Order dated 11.04.2023 and Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. v. Ganesh Property Appeal (civil) 4657 of 1998, Order dated 08.09.1998 to argue that a plaint cannot be rejected by dissecting isolated paragraphs; inconsistencies in pleadings do not by themselves render a cause of action illusory; and the plaint must be considered holistically.
f. It is further urged, with reference to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in Pannalal v. Naraini, 1952 AIR SC 170 and the Bombay High Court decision in Hanmant Kashinath Joshi v. Ganesh Annaji Pujari, AIR 1918 Bom 13, that under Hindu law a son is not ipso facto personally liable for the debts or wrongful acts of his father, and that the plaintiff's substantive legal position of non-liability, grounded in such principles, warrants a declaratory decree if third parties and police authorities are proceeding against him as if he were liable.
IV. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
13. In the light of the pleadings and the grounds urged, the following points arise for determination in this appeal:
RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ: 98/2025 Page 7 of 21a. Whether the Ld. Trial Court was justified in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC on the ground that it does not disclose a cause of action and is a vexatious litigation?
b. Whether the rejection of the plaint without issuance of notice to the defendants suffers from any procedural illegality or violation of principles of natural justice? c. Whether, on a holistic reading of the plaint and the law on declaratory and injunctive reliefs, any interference with the impugned order is warranted?
V. APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES Scope of Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC
14. The law on rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is well-settled. The Court must confine itself to the averments in the plaint, read as a whole, along with the documents relied upon by the plaintiff. The defence of the defendant is irrelevant at this stage. If, assuming all plaint averments to be true, no decree can possibly be passed, or if the suit is barred by law, the plaint must be rejected at the threshold. The remedy is drastic but is intended precisely to weed out sham and illusory litigations which are bound to fail and unnecessarily consume judicial time.
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised that:
RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ: 98/2025 Page 8 of 21a. the test is whether, taking the plaint averments as correct in their entirety, they disclose a clear right to sue and would entitle the plaintiff to a decree;
b. clever drafting creating an illusion of cause of action must be nipped in the bud (T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal); c. the Court has a duty under Order VII Rule 11 to terminate meaningless or abusive litigation at the earliest, without driving the parties to trial where no triable civil right is disclosed.
16. At the same time, decisions such as G. Nagaraj (supra) and Raptakos Brett (supra) reiterate that a plaint must be read as a whole and not by picking fragments; minor inconsistencies cannot be a ground to reject the plaint if, overall, a substantive cause of action is disclosed. The power to reject a plaint is to be exercised with circumspection, but where the deficiency is fundamental, i.e. there is no legally cognisable right or enforceable civil claim, the Court is bound to act even at the threshold.
Declaratory Relief under Section 34, Specific Relief Act
17. Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act permits a person to seek a declaration that he is entitled to "any legal character" or to "any right as to any property" against a person "denying, or interested to deny" such legal character or right. Jurisprudence has consistently held that:
RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ: 98/2025 Page 9 of 21a. the declaration must relate to a legal status (e.g., legitimacy, office, contractual relationship) or a right to property; b. purely abstract, academic or anticipatory declarations, disconnected from a concrete jural relationship between the parties, are not maintainable;
c. the Court will not grant roving negative declarations untethered to a specific legal right or dispute, nor will it issue declarations intended essentially to shield a party from hypothetical or future criminal or administrative consequences in the abstract.
Civil Court's Interference with Criminal Process / Police Functions
18. It is equally settled that a civil court cannot ordinarily interdict statutory investigations by police authorities under the Criminal Procedure, nor can it restrain them by injunction from issuing notices or summoning persons for enquiry pursuant to complaints. The appropriate remedies, if any, lie under the CrPC itself or in the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, and not by way of a civil suit for declaration and injunction. A civil suit which, in substance, seeks to pre-empt or thwart criminal investigation, or to obtain a declaration of "non-liability" in respect of alleged offences, is misconceived and barred by the scheme of the CrPC and the Specific Relief Act (particularly Section 41 which forbids injunctions to restrain RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ: 98/2025 Page 10 of 21 criminal proceedings and where equally efficacious remedies exist).
VI. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS POINT OF DETERMINATION NO. 2: WHETHER THE REJECTION OF THE PLAINT WITHOUT ISSUANCE OF NOTICE TO THE DEFENDANTS SUFFERS FROM ANY PROCEDURAL ILLEGALITY OR VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE?
19. As this ground goes to procedure, it is taken up first. The appellant contends that the Ld. Trial Court erred in invoking Order VII Rule 11 CPC without issuing notice to the defendants, and that such rejection violates natural justice.
20. The contention is misconceived. Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the inquiry is confined to the plaint itself. The presence or defence of the defendants is neither necessary nor relevant at that stage. The jurisdiction of the Court to reject a plaint can be exercised suo motu at any stage of the suit, even before issuance of summons, provided the plaintiff is afforded an opportunity to be heard.
21. The record reveals that the Ld. Trial Court heard submissions on the maintainability of the suit and then passed the impugned order. The plaintiff was thus heard; it is not his case that he was condemned unheard. There is no requirement in law that the defendants must be heard before a plaint is rejected under Order VII RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ: 98/2025 Page 11 of 21 Rule 11. The rights of the defendants are not prejudicially affected by such rejection; on the contrary, they are spared the anxiety and cost of defending a baseless claim.
22. The plea of violation of Article 14 or natural justice, on the ground that no notice was issued to the defendants, is therefore untenable and is rejected.
POINT OF DETERMINATION NO. 1 & 3:
WHETHER THE LD. TRIAL COURT WAS JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE PLAINT UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(A) CPC ON THE GROUND THAT IT DOES NOT DISCLOSE A CAUSE OF ACTION AND IS A VEXATIOUS LITIGATION?
WHETHER, ON A HOLISTIC READING OF THE PLAINT AND THE LAW ON DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEFS, ANY INTERFERENCE WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS WARRANTED?
Nature of the declarations sought against defendant no. 1
23. Reliefs (A) and (B) seek declarations that:
a. the plaintiff has no concern with the acts of defendant no. 1 in his DHL project at Rohtak; and b. the plaintiff is not responsible for the acts of defendant no. 1, in any manner whatsoever.RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ: 98/2025 Page 12 of 21
24. On a plain reading of the plaint, these declarations are not founded on any concrete legal relationship or claim asserted by defendant no. 1 against the plaintiff. The plaint does not allege that defendant no. 1 has described the plaintiff as his partner, agent, or co-promoter in the project, nor that defendant no. 1 has instituted any civil proceedings or raised any legal demand seeking to saddle the plaintiff with his liabilities. The entire grievance is that unknown complainants and the Rohtak police are treating or suspecting the plaintiff as being involved in the acts of defendant no. 1.
25. In other words, the plaintiff seeks a roving, negative declaration of non-liability vis-à-vis his father's alleged acts, for use as a shield against possible future or ongoing complaints or investigations. This does not fall within the ambit of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. The plaintiff's "legal character" as the son of defendant no. 1 is admitted by him; he does not, and cannot, seek a declaration that he is not his father's son. What he seeks is, in essence, a civil "certificate" that he cannot be held responsible for his father's alleged cheating or fraud, irrespective of the nature of specific transactions or evidence.
26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court decisions cited by learned counsel for the appellant on Hindu law and the pious obligation of sons, notably Pannalal (supra) and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in Hanmant Kashinath Joshi (supra), deal with a very different stage and context: enforcement of RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ: 98/2025 Page 13 of 21 decrees against the separate or ancestral property of sons for pre-partition debts of the father, and the contours of their substantive liability in execution proceedings. Those decisions recognise that the liability of sons is not automatic, and that they may resist execution against their shares by pleading immorality/illegality of the debt or lack of arrangement at partition. Crucially, they do not lay down that, prior to any decree, attachment, or concrete claim against the sons, a suit for abstract declaration of "non-liability" is maintainable.
27. The remedy, as recognised in those authorities, is that when and if a creditor or decree-holder seeks to proceed against the sons' property, the sons can appear and contest such liability in those very proceedings. That jurisprudence cannot be stretched to say that a son can maintain a general civil suit for declaration that he shall never be liable for any act or debt of his father, irrespective of the facts, transactions, or nature of claims that may arise.
28. Thus, even assuming the correctness of the plaintiff's averments that he had no involvement in the DHL project and derived no benefit from it, the declarations sought against defendant no. 1 are not anchored in any specific jural relationship in dispute between them. No present legal right of the plaintiff is being denied by defendant no. 1; at best, the plaintiff apprehends misperceptions on the part of third-party complainants and investigating agencies.
RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ: 98/2025 Page 14 of 21Section 34 does not authorise the Court to grant abstract or anticipatory declarations of this kind.
Reliefs against defendant nos. 2 and 3 (police authorities)
29. Relief (C) seeks a declaration that defendant nos. 2 and 3 "will not harass and humiliate the plaintiff for each and every complaint received by them against defendant no. 1 and his family members", and relief (D) seeks a permanent and mandatory injunction restraining them from restraining the plaintiff from moving or shifting from one place to another.
30. The plaint itself discloses that defendant nos. 2 and 3 are discharging their statutory functions upon complaints received regarding the DHL project, and have issued notices asking the plaintiff to join investigation or to respond to complaints. There is no specific pleaded act beyond the issuance of such notices and alleged phone calls, nor any concrete, pleaded illegality in the mode of investigation under the CrPC. The allegations of "harassment" are general and vague.
31. A civil court cannot, by way of a declaratory decree, restrict the police authorities from entertaining complaints, conducting enquiry, or summoning persons, so long as they act within the bounds of law. Nor can it issue an omnibus injunction that the police shall not "harass and humiliate" the plaintiff for any complaint against defendant no. 1, or that they shall not restrain him RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ: 98/2025 Page 15 of 21 from moving from one place to another. Such reliefs would, in effect, amount to supervision and control of statutory investigation processes, something for which the Code of Criminal Procedure and the writ jurisdiction of the High Court provide their own carefully calibrated mechanisms.
32. Section 41(d) and (h) of the Specific Relief Act also disentitle a plaintiff to injunctions which would restrain criminal proceedings or where he has an equally efficacious remedy by other usual mode of proceeding. If the plaintiff apprehends illegal coercion, unlawful detention, or violation of his fundamental rights at the hands of the police, his remedies lie before the appropriate criminal courts under the CrPC or before the High Court under Articles 226/227 and 482, and not by a civil suit for declaration and permanent/mandatory injunction against the police.
33. Therefore, even if the plaint is taken at face value, the civil court lacks jurisdiction to entertain and grant the reliefs sought against defendant nos. 2 and 3 in the form in which they are couched.
Does a holistic reading disclose any triable civil cause?
33. Learned counsel for the appellant has invoked decisions such as G. Nagaraj (supra) and Raptakos Brett (supra) to contend that the plaint must be read as a whole, and that mere inconsistencies cannot justify rejection of the plaint. There can be no RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ: 98/2025 Page 16 of 21 quarrel with that proposition. Accordingly, the plaint has been considered in its entirety, keeping aside minor errors in dates, repetitions and drafting infelicities.
34. Even on such a holistic reading, however, the fundamental defect remains: the plaint does not assert any recognised civil right or legal character in respect of which the defendants are presently denying, or are interested in denying, such right, nor does it seek reliefs that the civil court can competently grant. As against defendant no. 1, no specific transaction, representation, or assertion is pleaded by which defendant no. 1 has bound the plaintiff or portrayed him as co-obligor so as to give rise to a concrete dispute of civil liability inter se father and son. As against defendant nos. 2 and 3, the suit is essentially an attempt to insulate the plaintiff from lawful investigation into complaints lodged before them, and to obtain an open-ended declaration and injunction regulating their future conduct in undefined matters.
35. The plaintiff's anxiety to protect his reputation and to distance himself from the alleged misdeeds of his father is understandable at a human level. However, not every grievance or apprehension translates into a cause of action in civil law. The question under Order VII Rule 11(a) is not whether the plaintiff has suffered stress or inconvenience, but whether the facts pleaded, if proved, would entitle him to the reliefs claimed from this Court, RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ: 98/2025 Page 17 of 21 within the four corners of the CPC, the Specific Relief Act and other applicable laws.
36. The answer, for the reasons already discussed, is in the negative. No decree in the terms prayed for can be passed, even if every averment in the plaint is accepted as true. The suit is therefore hit squarely by Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC.
Allegation of "vexatious" or "abusive" litigation
37. The Ld. Trial Court has also characterised the suit as "vexatious" and an abuse of the process of law. Strictly speaking, once it is found that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action or seeks reliefs barred by law, the further characterisation of the plaintiff's motives is not necessary to sustain rejection under Order VII Rule 11(a). The more material finding is that no cause of action is disclosed.
38. That said, the use of expressions such as "illusory cause of action", "sham litigation" and "abuse of process" in connection with Order VII Rule 11 has judicial pedigree in decisions like T. Arivandandam (supra), where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has cautioned that courts must not allow cleverly drafted but substantively meritless plaints to proceed to trial. The impugned order's reference to these concepts is, therefore, doctrinally supported and does not, by itself, vitiate the result.
RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ: 98/2025 Page 18 of 2139. This Court is, however, inclined to proceed on the narrower but sufficient ground that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action and seeks reliefs which a civil court cannot grant in law. On that footing alone, rejection under Order VII Rule 11(a) is fully justified.
VII. CONCLUSION
40. To summarize:
a. The power under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC can be exercised on the basis of plaint averments alone, even without notice to the defendants, provided the plaintiff is heard. No procedural illegality is made out in the manner in which the Ld. Trial Court invoked this provision.
b. The declaratory reliefs sought against defendant no. 1 are abstract and anticipatory; they do not relate to any specific legal character or right to property presently denied or threatened by defendant no. 1, but are aimed at obtaining a general civil certificate of non-liability for any acts of the father. Such a suit is not maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.
c. The reliefs sought against defendant nos. 2 and 3, being police authorities, would effectively restrain or regulate lawful criminal investigation and future handling of complaints. Such reliefs are barred by the scheme of the CrPC and by RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ: 98/2025 Page 19 of 21 Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, and are not within the legitimate remit of a civil court.
d. Reading the plaint as a whole, even assuming every allegation to be true, no decree in the terms prayed for can be passed. The plaint, therefore, does not disclose a cause of action within the meaning of Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC.
e. The authorities on which the appellant relies, including Pannalal (supra) Hanmant Kashinath Joshi (supra), deal with the substantive Hindu law liability of sons in respect of the father's debts at the stage of execution or in suits brought by creditors. They do not support the maintainability of a freestanding declaratory suit of the kind filed by the plaintiff in the present case.
41. In view of the above discussion, no ground is made out to interfere with the order dated 21.05.2025 passed by the Ld. Civil Judge-01, South-West, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.
42. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed at the stage of admission under Order XLI Rule 11 CPC. The impugned order rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC is affirmed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
43. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Trial court RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ: 98/2025 Page 20 of 21 record be returned along with a copy of this judgment. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT DATED: 23.01.2026 (SUMIT DALAL) DISTRICT JUDGE - 04 SOUTH WEST DISTRICT DWARKA COURTS : NEW DELHI RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ: 98/2025 Page 21 of 21