UKHC010127202026 2026:UHC:6441 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/2189/2026 Vidhi Alias Pushpa --Petitioner Versus Rajeev Kumar --Respondent Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Kaparuwan, Advocate for the petitioner. 2. A suit for rectification of sale deed was filed by brother of the petitioner in which relief of permanent injunction was also sought. Petitioner who is the sole defendant in that suit moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint by contending that the suit is barred by law. 3. Learned Trial Court rejected the application filed by petitioner vide order dated 29.05.2026. Petitioner has challenged said order in this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the case set up in the plaint, the land was jointly purchased in the name of plaintiff and defendant, while the sale consideration was paid from the joint account of plaintiff and his wife. Thus he submits that provision contained in Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 would be attracted and the suit would be barred. Thus it is contended that learned Trial Court erred in rejecting UKHC010127202026 2026:UHC:6441 the application filed by petitioner. 5. This Court is not impressed by the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. 6. Law is well settled that while deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only the plaint averments are to be seen and the defence taken by defendant in his written statement or objection raised in application under Order 7 Rule 11 is not to be considered at all. 7. From reading of the plaint or even from reading of the application filed by petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, it is revealed that the issue raised by petitioner is not reflected from the plaint. The application made by petitioner is also silent on that aspect. 8. Learned Trial Court has given valid reason for rejecting petitioner’s application. Rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is an extreme measure, therefore a foolproof case has to be made out by defendant for rejection of plaint; however, application filed by petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC does not say anything more than that the suit is barred by law. 9. Thus, there is no scope for interference in the matter. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 27.07.2026 Mahinder UKHC010127202026 2026:UHC:6441