$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + C.R.P. 38/2026 & CM APPL. 9436-9438/2026 PINKI CHARU (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Jyotsana Nidhi, Proxy Counsel. versus RAJENDER KUMAR (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS ...Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL O R D E R % 17.07.2026 1. This petition has been filed by petitioner/defendant assailing order dated 20th September 2025, passed by the District Judge, North-East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in CS No.58/2017, whereby application filed by petitioner/defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [‘CPC’], was dismissed. 2. The suit in question had been filed by respondent/plaintiff seeking decree of possession, permanent injunction, mesne profits/damages in respect of the suit property. It was stated by defendants that, the earlier valuation of the suit property was Rs.6,55,400/-, and thereafter, on the basis of the testimony of DW-4, Netra Pal Singh, regarding measurement of the suit property, it was found that the Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. The fact was also conceded by counsel for respondent/plaintiff before the Trial Court. 3. Consequently, application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC was allowed, and the matter was transferred to the Court of District Judge, North-East, This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2026 at 12:09:24 Karkardooma Courts for further orders. It was stated before the District Judge that, upon return of the plaint, a de novo trial was required to commence. 4. Ms. Jyotsana Nidhi, counsel for petitioner/defendant, submits that considering that the pecuniary jurisdiction has changed and the plaint was returned, a de novo trial was required to be conducted. 5. It is noted in the impugned order that the suit was filed in 2008. The entire evidence had already been led, the matter was listed for final arguments, and only thereafter, was the application under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC filed. 6. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Joginder Tuli v. S.L. Bhatia, (1997) 1 SCC 502, wherein it was observed that “normally, when the plaint is directed to be returned for presentation to the proper court perhaps it has to start from the beginning but in this case, since the evidence was already adduced by the parties, the matter was tried accordingly. The High Court had directed to proceed from that stage at which the suit stood transferred. We find no illegality in the order passed by the High Court warranting interference.”, the District Judge found no reason to reject the plaint or direct a de novo trial. 7. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is bound to give due deference to the decision of the Supreme Court in this regard, and therefore, does not find any reason for the present petition to be sustained. 8. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 9. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous. 10. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court. ANISH DAYAL, J JULY 17, 2026/MK/ya This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2026 at 12:09:24