***

MANDEEP PANNU, J. (ORAL) –

1. The present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside the order dated 14.09.2026 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram, in Civil Suit No.520 of 2019, whereby the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the counter-claim preferred by the defendant was dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff, Suresh Jain, filed a suit for permanent injunction pleading that he is the owner in possession of the suit property. It was further averred that the defendant is a practicing doctor who visits various hospitals in Gurugram and Delhi. The parties have known each other for several years and have been dealing with each other in real estate investments and various other businesses. The plaintiff sought a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his representatives, etc., from threatening the plaintiff in any manner whatsoever, trespassing into the suit property and causing any harm to the life and belongings of the plaintiff.

3. Upon appearance, the defendant filed a counter-claim pleading therein that the parties had entered into an oral agreement on 28.02.2018, whereby the plaintiff had expressed his willingness to sell his house to the defendant. The sale consideration was settled at Rs.65,00,000/-, out of which the counter-claimant allegedly paid a sum of Rs.31,18,000/- as advance and part payment. The remaining amount of Rs.33,82,000/- was agreed to be paid on or before the registration of the sale deed. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff was not executing the sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the counter-claimant and was adamant to alienate the same and hand over its physical possession to some third party by creating third-party rights therein. Accordingly, the counter-claimant sought a decree of mandatory injunction directing the plaintiff to perform his obligations under the alleged contract by executing the sale deed in favour of the counter-claimant in respect of the suit property and by handing over its actual physical possession along with the original title deeds and other relevant documents. A decree of permanent injunction was also sought restraining the plaintiff from alienating the suit property or handing over its physical possession to any third party by creating thirdparty rights therein.

4. Besides the above, the plaintiff filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC seeking rejection of the counter-claim, primarily on the grounds that the main suit was simpliciter for permanent injunction, whereas the counter-claimant had sought specific performance of an alleged oral agreement, which had no connection with the relief claimed in the main suit. It was further contended that the counter-claim was founded upon an alleged oral agreement dated 28.02.2018, whereas the same had been filed only on 07.09.2024, without any prior legal notice or demand, and was thus ex-facie barred by limitation. It was also contended that the counter-claim was an afterthought and a concocted plea set up by the defendant after an inordinate delay, with the sole intention of harassing the plaintiff.

5. The defendant-cum-counter-claimant filed a reply to the aforesaid application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, alleging therein that the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 CPC are not applicable to a counter-claim in the manner sought to be invoked by the plaintiff. It was further asserted that the agreement had a validity period of seven years and, therefore, the relief claimed in the counter-claim was within limitation and could not be rejected summarily at the threshold without leading evidence. The defendant-cum-counter-claimant also denied the allegations of fraud, manipulation of the court record and fabrication, as levelled by the plaintiff.

6. Thereafter, learned trial Court, after considering the pleadings of the parties and the material available on record, dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order VII Rule 11 CPC vide the impugned order dated 14.09.2026. Being aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff has preferred the present civil revision petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that learned trial Court, despite holding that an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is maintainable against a counter-claim, failed to properly examine the specific grounds raised by the petitioner for rejection thereof. It was argued that the counter-claim seeking specific performance of the alleged oral agreement dated 28.02.2018, instituted on 07.09.2024, was ex-facie barred by limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the mere assertion of a seven-year validity period could not, by itself, extend the period of limitation. It was further contended that the counter-claim lacked the necessary pleadings demonstrating the readiness and willingness of the defendant to perform his part of the alleged agreement, particularly to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.33,82,000/-. Learned counsel further argued that the alleged agreement had never been disclosed in any earlier pleadings and that the counter-claim was an afterthought and a counterblast to the suit for permanent injunction instituted by the petitioner in the year 2019, with the object of harassing him and creating complications in respect of his property. It was, thus, contended that learned trial Court had mechanically relegated the objections regarding limitation and maintainability of the counter-claim to trial without examining whether the same were apparent from the averments contained in the counter-claim itself, thereby rendering the impugned order unsustainable in law.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the impugned order as well as the material available on record.

9. Short question being involved, issuance of notice of motion to the respondent is dispensed with.

10. The short question which arises for consideration in the present petition is whether learned trial Court has committed any illegality or jurisdictional error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking rejection of the counter-claim preferred by the respondent.

11. At the outset, it is required to be noticed that learned trial Court has rightly rejected the preliminary objection raised by the respondent-cum-counter-claimant regarding the maintainability of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC against a counter-claim. A counter-claim is in the nature of a plaint and is to be treated as an independent suit. Consequently, the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 CPC are equally applicable to a counter-claim. The said position has, in fact, been correctly recognized by learned trial Court, and no fault can be found with its conclusion on this aspect.

12. The controversy, therefore, is confined to the question whether the counter-claim, on a meaningful reading of its averments, was liable to be rejected at the threshold on any of the grounds enumerated under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

13. It is a settled proposition of law that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court is required to examine the averments contained in the plaint and the documents relied upon in support thereof. For the purpose of deciding such an application, the defence set up by the opposite party or the correctness and genuineness of the allegations made in the plaint cannot be examined. The Court has to proceed on the assumption that the averments made in the plaint are correct and determine whether, on their face value, they disclose a cause of action or attract any of the grounds enumerated under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The provision is intended to prevent vexatious and legally untenable litigation, but at the same time, it cannot be employed as a mechanism for adjudicating disputed questions of fact at the threshold.

14. In the present case, the principal objection raised by the petitioner is that the counter-claim seeking specific performance of the alleged oral agreement dated 28.02.2018, having been instituted on 07.09.2024, is barred by limitation. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes a period of three years for instituting a suit for specific performance, commencing from the date fixed for performance or, where no such date is fixed, from the date when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.

15. The question as to whether such a term was actually agreed upon between the parties, what were the precise terms of the alleged oral agreement, whether any date was fixed for performance and when the petitioner allegedly refused to perform his part of the agreement are matters which require consideration in the light of the pleadings and the evidence to be led by the parties. Merely because the alleged agreement is stated to have been entered into on 28.02.2018 and the counter-claim was instituted on 07.09.2024, it cannot, by itself, be conclusively held at this preliminary stage that the claim is barred by limitation, particularly when the counter-claimant has set up a specific plea regarding the seven-year validity period and the commencement of limitation is dependent upon the date fixed for performance or the date of refusal, as contemplated under Article 54 of the Limitation Act.

16. Another contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the alleged agreement was never disclosed in any earlier pleadings and that the counter-claim was instituted after an inordinate delay, being merely a counterblast to the suit for permanent injunction filed by the petitioner in the year 2019. However, the mere fact that the counter-claim was instituted subsequently or that the alleged agreement was not referred to in earlier pleadings would not, by itself, constitute a ground for rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The allegations regarding the genuineness of the transaction, the conduct of the parties and the circumstances in which the counter-claim came to be filed are matters which may have a bearing upon the merits and credibility of the respective cases of the parties, but cannot be adjudicated upon merely on the basis of the assertions made by the petitioner in the application for rejection of the counter-claim.

17. It is also relevant to notice that the respondent-cum-counterclaimant has pleaded payment of a sum of Rs.31,18,000/- towards advance and part sale consideration out of the total agreed consideration of Rs.65,00,000/-, with the balance amount of Rs.33,82,000/- to be paid at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. Whether the alleged payment was actually made, whether the parties had entered into the alleged oral agreement and whether the respondent-cum-counter-claimant was ready and willing to perform his part of the alleged contract are all matters which would be subject to adjudication on the basis of the evidence led by the parties. This Court, while examining the legality of the impugned order, cannot record findings on the genuineness or otherwise of the underlying transaction.

18. It is pertinent to reiterate that the power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is exercisable only when the case squarely falls within the parameters prescribed therein. The Court cannot conduct a mini trial while deciding an application under the said provision. Equally, the provision cannot be invoked to determine disputed questions relating to the existence, terms and performance of an agreement, which require adjudication on the basis of evidence. In the present case, learned trial Court has examined the counter-claim as a whole and has recorded a finding that the same cannot be said to be devoid of cause of action or barred by limitation on the face of the record. The reasoning adopted by learned trial Court does not suffer from any patent illegality, perversity or material irregularity warranting interference by this Court.

19. Consequently, this Court finds no sufficient ground to interfere with the order dated 14.09.2026 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram. Learned trial Court has committed no jurisdictional error in declining to reject the counter-claim at the threshold and in leaving the disputed questions relating to the alleged oral agreement, its terms, limitation and performance to be adjudicated in accordance with law.

20. Accordingly, the present civil revision petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.

21. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove are confined to the adjudication of the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the counter-claim. Learned trial Court shall decide the same independently, uninfluenced by any observation made in this order.

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

Petition dismissed.

********