***

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) --

CM-13401-CII-2026:

Allowed. Annexures P-6 and P-7 are taken on record.

Main case.:

The petitioners, who are contesting defendant Nos.1 and 2 in Civil Suit No.CS-566-2021 titled M/s Praveen Verma & Sons and others v. Mrs. Sonia and others, pending before learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Samalkha, have approached this Court assailing the order dated 05.03.2026 (Annexure P-1), whereby their application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the CPC’) for rejection of the plaint has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the suit ?led in the year 2021 is, in substance, an attempt by the plainti?s to assail the sale deed dated 08.07.2013 executed in favour of petitioner-defendant No.2, Sunil Kumar, in respect of 2 Kanals of land, representing 40/245 share in the total land. It is contended that the plainti?s having admitted the execution of the aforesaid sale deed in favour of defendant No.2, cannot subsequently question the transaction under the guise of challenging the family settlement e?ected in the year 2019 between defendant No.2 and his wife, defendant No.1.

3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and perusing the plaint (Annexure P-2), the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC (Annexure P-3), the impugned order (Annexure P-1) and the family transfer deed (Annexure P-5), this Court ?nds no merit in the present petition.

4. It is well settled that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court is required to examine the averments contained in the plaint, read as a whole, along with the documents relied upon by the plainti?. The defence of the defendant or the merits of the defence cannot ordinarily be examined at this stage. The Court has to proceed on the assumption that the averments contained in the plaint are correct and determine whether, on their face, the plaint discloses a cause of action or is barred by any provision of law.

5. The power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is undoubtedly an important power intended to prevent a vexatious or legally untenable litigation from proceeding to trial. However, the same cannot be exercised by undertaking a disputed adjudication of facts or by accepting the defence version in preference to the averments made in the plaint. Where the question raised by the defendant requires examination of the nature and e?ect of the documents relied upon by the respective parties, particularly where such question is intertwined with disputed facts, the plaint cannot ordinarily be rejected at the threshold.

6. In the present case, the contention of the petitioners proceeds on the premise that the plainti?s are, in e?ect, challenging the sale deed dated 08.07.2013. The said premise, however, does not appear to be borne out from the pleadings. As noticed by the learned trial Court, the plainti?s have not sought to challenge the said sale deed in the manner suggested by the petitioners. Their grievance is directed against the subsequent family settlement/transfer e?ected inter se defendant Nos.1 and 2.

7. The distinction is material. The validity, nature and legal e?ect of the subsequent family transfer cannot be determined merely by referring to the fact that defendant No.2 had acquired an undivided share under the sale deed dated 08.07.2013. The question whether, and to what extent, a person holding an undivided share could deal with a particular identi?ed portion of the larger property, and whether the subsequent family transfer could operate in the manner alleged, are matters which would require examination of the relevant documents and the rights of the parties. Such questions cannot be conclusively adjudicated while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

8. In fact, the family transfer deed itself assumes signi?cance. As noticed from Annexure P-5, petitioner Sunil Kumar is projected to have transferred a showroom having speci?ed dimensions, forming part of property measuring 12 Kanals 5 Marlas, whereas the case of the petitioners themselves is that the sale deed of 08.07.2013 conveyed to defendant No.2 only an undivided 40/245 share equivalent to 2 Kanals.

9. Whether such subsequent transfer could validly operate in respect of a speci?cally identi?ed showroom, despite the nature of the interest acquired under the earlier sale deed, is a matter requiring adjudication on the basis of the pleadings, documents and evidence of the parties. It cannot be said, at this preliminary stage, that the suit is barred by law or that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action merely because defendant No.2 had earlier acquired an undivided share in the property.

10. It is equally important that, for purposes of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court cannot undertake a mini-trial. The correctness of the plainti?s' allegations, the e?ect of the family transfer deed, the precise extent of the rights acquired under the sale deed dated 08.07.2013 and the legal e?ect of dealing with a particular portion of joint property are matters which fall for determination during adjudication of the suit and cannot be conclusively decided on the basis of the petitioners' assertions at the threshold.

11. The learned trial Court has, therefore, rightly declined to accept the petitioners' contention that the suit is merely a disguised challenge to the sale deed dated 08.07.2013. The plaint, on a meaningful reading, raises a dispute concerning the subsequent transaction between defendant Nos.1 and 2 and the nature and extent of the rights purportedly dealt with thereunder. The plaint cannot consequently be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

12. No jurisdictional error, perversity or material illegality is found in the impugned order dated 05.03.2026 warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction.

13. Finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed at the preliminary stage.

14. It is clari?ed that nothing contained in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the plainti?s' challenge to the family transfer deed or on the respective rights of the parties in the suit. The learned trial Court shall decide the suit strictly in accordance with law and on the basis of the evidence led before it.

15. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

Petition dismissed.

********