C.R.P./284/2026 of NATIONAL LABOUR CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION OF INDIA LTD Vs ASHISH KUMAR PANDEY & ORS. on 22 September 2026

O R D E R

%

22.09.2026

CM APPL.65374-75/2026 (Exemptions)

1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Applications is disposed of, accordingly. CM APPL.65377/2026 (Condonation of delay)

1. This application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 13 days in re-filing the petition. For the reasons stated in the said application, the delay of 13 days in re-filing the present petition is condoned.

2. Application is disposed of, accordingly. C.R.P. 284/2026

1. This petition has been filed assailing impugned order dated 25th July 2026 passed by the District Judge, South East District, Saket Courts in CS

DJ No. 1536/2017, whereby the application filed by defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) was dismissed.

2. The suit was filed by the legal heirs of late Sh. Ramanand Pandey, who was employed with the defendant society, seeking recovery of an amount of Rs. 41,22,951/- and mandatory injunction. It was stated that the deceased commenced his career with the defendant society in the year 1982 and served as its Managing Director for 15 years.

3. After rendering approximately 34 years of service, he retired on 30th June 2016. As per the terms of his employment and the Service Rules of the defendant society, the deceased was entitled to payment of his entire outstanding salary, including unpaid salary, arrears of increments, enhanced DA, etc., as well as his entire retirement benefits, including gratuity, contributory provident fund, employee provident fund, etc. It was stated in the suit that, as these dues were not paid by the defendant society, he was compelled to borrow money from various sources to meet the expenses of his family.

4. Unfortunately, he passed away on 07th August 2016. Post his death, the plaintiffs, asserting themselves to be legal heirs, were seeking recovery of the said amounts from the defendant society.

5. The suit is presently at the stage of recording of evidence and is at an advanced stage of trial.

6. The defendant society moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, contending that no Surviving Member Certificate was on record and that, in any event, no succession certificate had been produced.

7. Mr. Praveen Agarwal, counsel for defendant society/petitioner, states that, in fact, a Surviving Member Certificate was available on record, but a succession certificate had not been produced.

8. He relies upon the decision of this Court in Sunita v Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1326, wherein in a writ petition seeking release of gratuity, family pension, GPF, insurance and other retiral benefits of the petitioner’s husband, the Court, while directing release of the said benefits on the basis of a surviving member certificate, observed that a succession certificate is intended to certify that the petitioner is the legal heir to whom the retiral benefits accrued to the deceased are to be released. Court stated that the requirement of a succession certificate ensures that any other legal heirs of the deceased are precluded from subsequently claiming the retiral benefits and that the same are paid to the petitioner alone.

9. He further contends that, apart from the requirement of a succession certificate, the defendants have also disputed the amounts due and payable to the deceased, Ramanand Pandey.

10. On the basis of these submissions, the present petition has been pressed against the rejection of the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

11. The Court has perused the impugned order and notes that the view taken by the Trial Court is correct. Institution of the suit cannot be prevented for lack of a succession certificate, considering the surviving member certificate was already on record.

12. It is also noted that there is a specific averment in the plaint that no other legal heirs were left behind by the deceased. Counsel for the petitioner states that there is no such averment, that they are the only legal heirs. However, these would be aspects to be considered in trial.

13. The Trial Court has also relied upon the decision of this Court in Dinesh Kumar v. Union of India, 2026 OnLine Del 719, which was also rendered in a writ petition, wherein the Court observed that a succession certificate ought not to be insisted upon as a matter of course where legal heirship is undisputed and duly established.

14. The impugned order also correctly states that as far as the dispute on the amounts is concerned, the same is a question of trial.

15. Further, on the issue of delay in filing an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, particularly when the matter has reached advanced stage of trial, reliance may be placed on the order dated 11th September 2024 passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4570/2023, titled M/s Bhagya Estate Ventures Pvt. Ltd. v. Narne Estate Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., wherein the Supreme Court observed as under: “ 13. It is amply clear that the purpose behind such a provision is to ensure that the plaints or petitions which are defective, for any of the reasons enumerated, shall not be allowed to proceed further and shall be put to an end before they progress to an advanced stage. When such is the purpose, we fail to understand as to how an application for rejection of a plaint can be entertained at a stage where written submission has already been filed, evidence has been led and the trial has substantially reached the stage of final arguments, as in the present case. This would rather go completely against the objective of the provision and would effectively not serve the purpose which it intended to.

14. Moreover, when the proceedings have reached such an advanced stage of trial and the Court has gone through the merits of the case, it is fair to presume that the Court has already applied its mind to the substantive submissions and cannot make a prima facie conclusion about a plaint being improper at the outset or not. Also, it is a settled position of law that when the court is considering an application under Order VII Rule 11, it must only peruse and consider the averments in the plaint to check whether the plaint is defective for any of the reasons provided under the rule or is a proper plaint. Since the plaint is the only material to be considered while deciding an application seeking rejection of plaint, then in a case where plaint has been registered, written submission has been filed, evidence has been recorded, and the parties are ready for final arguments, it is only natural that some form of bias or opinion regarding the merits of the case would crop up in the mind of the court. In such a scenario, looking at the plaint in isolation and deciding the rejection application based solely on prima facie reading of the plaint would not be possible. At this point, the trial has rather fructified to a stage where the dismissal of a suit on merits is a more appropriate course of action instead of rejecting a plaint at the outset which should have been done at a preliminary stage.

15. It is already a clarified position of law that without disposing of an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, the court cannot proceed with the trial. When this is the position of law and the purpose of the provision is also settled, then, we see no reason for the right of the defendant to raise such a plea at a far belated stage such as final arguments or nearing conclusion of the trial. Allowing such pleas to be raised after the trial has proceeded so far would not only defeat the intent of the provision but would also go against the principle of equity and would lead to wastage of the court resources. Additionally, allowing such rights to survive till eternity only act as a catalyst for the defendant to misuse the provision to prolong or delay the trial and abuse the process of law.” (emphasis supplied)

16. In view of the same, the Court does not wish to intercede in the matter and, therefore, the petition stands dismissed. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.

17. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court. ANISH DAYAL, J SEPTEMBER 22, 2026/RK/zb