In pari delicto barred the suit: a plaint was rejected because the plaintiff was allegedly complicit in the same wrongdoing.

A plaint was held liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC where the plaintiff's own pleadings showed participation in a transaction allegedly concealed in a relinquishment deed to avoid correct stamp duty consequences. The Court applied the principle of in pari delicto, holding that both parties were equally at fault and that a plaintiff seeking equitable or declaratory relief cannot rely on a wrong in which she was complicit. As courts do not assist a wrongdoer and leave the parties where they are found, the suit was treated as barred by law and could not be maintained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground that the plaintiff was equally involved in the alleged fraud and the suit was barred by the principle of in pari delicto.

Analysis: The pleadings and documents showed that the plaintiff herself alleged a transaction which was not disclosed in the relinquishment deed presented for registration. On the plaintiff's own version, the document was used to conceal the true nature of the transaction and to avoid the correct stamp duty consequences. The Court held that both sides were equally at fault and that the plaintiff could not seek equitable or declaratory relief while participating in the same wrongdoing. Applying the principle that courts do not assist a wrongdoer and leave the parties where they are found, the plaint was treated as barred by law.

Conclusion: The plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the suit could not be maintained because the parties were in pari delicto.

---