Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(1) Whether the suit as framed is maintainable?

(2) Whether the suit for declaration simplicitor without claiming relief of possession is maintainable?

(3) Whether the suit is properly valued for purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction?

(4) Whether the defendants No.3 to 7 are necessary and proper parties?

(5) Whether the suit against defendant No.5 is maintainable at Delhi?

3. Before the Court could hear arguments on the points referred to above, I.A.No.4686/1998 was filed by the plaintiff seeking review of the order dated 04.05.1998 which was dismissed on 25.05.1998 observing that no order on merits had been passed and as such there was no occasion to review that order.

10. Challenging these findings to be contrary to law, it was urged by learned counsel that the plaint could not have been rejected, if on a plain reading thereof it disclosed cause of action. Referring to the decisions reported as (1996) 8 SCC 377 State of Orrisa v. Klockner & Company, (2005) 10 SCC 760 Church of North India vs. Lavaji Bhai Rafunji Bhai and (2004) 9 SCC 512 Liverpool and London SP and I Association Ltd. v. MV Sea Success I, detailing the circumstances under which a plaint can be rejected, it was contended that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the suit property was sold by the plaintiff to defendant No.1, ignoring the specific averment in the plaint that the plaintiff entered into a construction agreement with defendant No.1. learned counsel urged that the learned Single Judge had to proceed on the assumption that the plaintiff parted with possession to the defendant under a construction agreement. Referring to the findings that plaintiff was holding no right, title or interest in the suit property, since he did not challenge the cancellation of the sub-lease deed, it was urged that the learned Single Judge ignored the fact that the sub-lease deed was restored in favour of the plaintiff and that the representations made by defendant No.1 to DDA or other authorities to restore the lease were only as attorney of the plaintiff. It was urged that the learned Single Judge also ignored the averment in the plaint that the General Power of Attorney dated 27.10.1992 was cancelled and intimation thereof was given to DDA on 06.10.1980. The findings returned by the learned Single Judge that a suit for declaration simplicitor, without claiming relief of possession was not maintainable, was questioned as being an erroneous finding. It was urged that a prior suit seeking possession had been filed and the instant suit was filed to remove the cloud cast on the plaintiff's title.