In pari delicto barred relief where a plaintiff relied on his own fraud and inconsistent sworn statements to challenge transactions.

The Delhi HC applied Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject a plaint where the plaintiff's own pleadings and documents showed that he had executed the impugned settlements, obtained a divorce decree on sworn statements, and later attempted to resile from those statements to challenge the same transactions. The Court found that he had taken inconsistent positions to defeat creditors, had misled the Court, and was equally at fault. On that basis, the doctrine of in pari delicto applied, and a party could not seek relief founded on his own fraud or illegal conduct. The plaint was therefore barred by law and rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaint was liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground that the plaintiff had played fraud on the Court and the parties were in pari delicto.

Analysis: The plaint itself pleaded that the plaintiff had executed the impugned settlements and obtained a decree of divorce while asserting before the matrimonial court that he had not been living with his wife since 01.03.2011. The pleadings and documents showed that he later sought to resile from those sworn statements while challenging the very transactions and decree obtained on that basis. The Court held that the plaintiff had taken convenient stands to defeat the rights of creditors, had misled the Court, and was equally at fault. Applying the settled principle that a court will not assist a party who founds a claim on his own fraud or illegal conduct, the Court held that the doctrine of in pari delicto barred relief.

Conclusion: The plaint was rejected as barred by law under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

---