Suit for injunction simpliciter not barred merely because declaratory relief not sought: Rajasthan High Court

Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has held that a suit seeking perpetual and mandatory injunction simpliciter cannot be thrown out at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC merely because the plaintiffs have not separately prayed for a declaration of title, where the plaint itself pleads ownership and possession and attributes the threat of interference to documents alleged to be forged.

Justice Farjand Ali, dismissing a civil revision petition at the admission stage itself, observed that disputed questions of fact thrown up by the defence cannot be adjudicated within the limited scope of an Order VII Rule 11 application, and that the plaintiffs’ ultimate failure to prove their asserted rights at trial cannot, by itself, supply a ground to reject the plaint at the outset.

The Court observed:

“…while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court is confined to the averments contained in the plaint and the defence raised by the defendants cannot be looked into for the purpose of rejection of plaint. The plaint has to be read as a whole in a meaningful manner.”

The revision petition under Section 115 CPC arose from an order dated 23 April 2026 of the Senior Civil Judge, Nawa City, who had rejected an application moved by the defendants under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in Civil Suit No. 23/2026. The defendants had urged the trial court to throw out the plaint at the threshold.

Before the High Court, counsel for the petitioner-defendants submitted that the suit as framed was not maintainable. It was contended that despite a serious dispute regarding title and rights over the suit property, the plaintiffs had merely sought perpetual and mandatory injunction without seeking a declaration of their rights. Counsel pointed to the plaint itself, which pleaded the existence of rival documents and competing claims, to argue that in the absence of substantive declaratory relief the plaint deserved rejection. It was further contended that the dispute pertained to land governed by the special statutory framework relating to saline land allotment, and that the jurisdiction of the civil court was barred.

A plain reading of the plaint, the Court noted, revealed clear pleadings that the suit property originally belonged to one late Pradeep Singh and, on his demise, devolved upon the plaintiffs — his wife, son and daughter — as legal heirs, with specific assertions regarding their proprietary rights and possession. The cause of action pleaded in the plaint was the alleged threat of dispossession and interference by the defendants on the strength of an alleged forged and fabricated lease deed. The plaintiffs had consequently sought the relief of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in their peaceful possession, together with consequential mandatory injunction.

Justice Ali held that even proceeding on the averments contained in the plaint itself, the case set up by the plaintiffs was that they were owners and in possession of the suit property and that interference was being caused on the strength of documents alleged to be forged. The Court observed:

“In such circumstances, at this stage, it cannot be said that the suit for injunction simpliciter is barred by law merely because declaratory relief has not been sought.”

Whether the plaintiffs were ultimately able to establish their rights, title or possession over the suit property was, the Court held, altogether a different matter to be determined only after parties led evidence at trial. The bench noted that the suit may ultimately even be dismissed on merits, but such a possibility could not by itself furnish a ground for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The controversy raised by the petitioners essentially pertained to disputed questions of fact which could not be adjudicated within the limited scope of proceedings under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

Holding that the trial court had not committed any jurisdictional error or material irregularity in rejecting the Order VII Rule 11 application, the High Court dismissed the revision petition at the admission stage itself, with pending applications also standing disposed of.

Title: Sandeep Singh v Babita Yadav & Ors.

Case No.: S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 155/2026

Citation: [2026:RJ-JD:23447]

Counsel for petitioner: Mr. Deependra Singh Shekhawat

Counsel for respondent: None appeared