Courts Must Make Judicious Use Of Order VII Rule 11 For Expeditious Disposal Of Petition, Discard Frivolous Litigation : Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently said that Courts must judiciously use the provision for rejection of plaint, Order VII Rule 11, to dispose of the pleas expeditiously and to discard frivolous litigation.

The division bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna and Justice Suresh Kumar Kait observed,

“Scrupulous adherence to provisions of CPC especially provisions like Order VII Rule 11 CPC can curtail litigation like the present one, which aside from clogging the litigation that could have been nipped in the initial stage itself, also keeps the parties embroiled in litigation with a false hope of some relief, which is never to come their way. This not only leads to dejection amongst the litigants towards the system but also leads to prolonged acrimony between the parties which is not conducive to a robust judicial system and ultimately to a peaceful society.”

The observations were made while hearing an Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 filed by a husband against the impugned Order wherein the application filed by the appellant under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for rejection of annulment suit filed by his wife was dismissed. The Principal Judge said plea of fraud in obtaining the consent of the respondent (wife) requires appreciation of facts and evidence.

The High Court observed that application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC can be filed at any stage with the rider being that the findings have to be confined to the averments made in the petition and the documents so relied upon by the petitioner. On the question of fraud, the Court said, under the Hindu Law, not every misrepresentation or concealment of a fact shall amount to “fraud” as envisaged under Section 12(1)(c) for annulment of a marriage.

The fraud must be material as to the nature of ceremony or to any material fact or circumstance concerning the respondent and thus, at this point it is pertinent to consider what would tantamount to a material fact, it added further.

Considering, the facts and submissions, the Court came to the conclusion that, “it abundantly evident that firstly, no cause of action has been disclosed in the petition for annulment of marriage on the ground of fraud or force and secondly, the petition has been filed beyond the period of one year from the date when the alleged fraud was discovered and the force ceased to operate.”

It thus allowed the appeal and rejected the petition filed before family Court for not disclosing any cause of action and being barred by limitation.

Case Title: Aseem Aggarwal v. Ashi Kumar

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 757

Click here to read/download the order