In a petition filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to assail an order dated 06-03-2026 by the Additional District Judge, Dewas, in a suit filed by respondent 1 for declaration and injunction, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) was dismissed, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Vinay Saraf affirmed the impugned order and dismissed the petition.
The petitioner and respondents 1, along with other defendants, were members of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). Respondent 1 filed a suit for declaration and injunction in respect of the subject properties on the grounds that the properties were purchased in the petitioner’s name through registered sale deeds from the nucleus of the HUF and that these properties were not self-acquired properties of defendant 2. It was also incorporated in the petition that one of the properties had already been auctioned by the bank in the proceedings initiated under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and that the remaining amount after the auction had not been handed over to defendant 2 as the HUF was entitled to get that amount from the bank.
The petitioner moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for rejection of the plaint, which was also dismissed by the impugned order. Another application was moved by defendant 2 under Order VI Rule 16 for striking off the pleadings on the ground that they were self-contradictory. The application also mentioned that the relief sought for payment of the residual amount by the bank could not be sought as the civil court had no jurisdiction under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act.
Respondent 1 filed a reply to oppose the application on the grounds that the pleadings were not contradictory and that no direction could be issued for striking off the pleadings. By the impugned order dated 06-03-2026, the Trial Court dismissed the application filed under Order VI Rule 16 on the grounds that the relief sought by the petitioner could not be granted as the pleadings of the plaint were neither unnecessary nor scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious. The present petition was filed to challenge the said order.
The Court noted that respondent 1 had filed a suit for declaration and injunction for two properties, and claimed that the sale deeds of these properties were executed in favour of defendant 2, but the payment of consideration was made from the funds of the HUF, meaning that these properties belonged to the family and that defendant 2 was not the sole owner of the properties.
The Court found that at the present stage, it could not be accepted that the pleadings of the plaint were unnecessary or otherwise an abuse of the Court process. It was stated that the relief claimed by respondent 1 was not in respect of any proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act and that the DRT could not decide the dispute in respect of the entitlement to receive the residue amount. It was noted that respondent 1 simply sought an injunction for the residue amount, if any, on the grounds that the properties were purchased from the nucleus of the HUF, and the Court opined that such relief was not barred under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act.
The Court stated that respondent 1 could not be compelled to delete the relief sought, as he did not seek any injunction against the proceedings initiated by the bank. It was held that the impugned order was just and proper, requiring no interference by the Court under Article 227. Thus, the admission was declined, and the petition was dismissed.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mr. Aniket Naik
For Respondent – None
