Written Statement Not Condition Precedent For Considering Application Under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has held that a written statement is not required to be filed by a defendant in a suit to contend that the court fee paid by the plaintiff is not proper and that the defendant's application under Rule 11 of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking rejection of suit, cannot be dismissed on that ground.A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj allowed...
The Karnataka High Court has held that a written statement is not required to be filed by a defendant in a suit to contend that the court fee paid by the plaintiff is not proper and that the defendant's application under Rule 11 of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking rejection of suit, cannot be dismissed on that ground.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj allowed the petition Shri Admar Mutt Kaliya Mardana Krishna Devaru and said “The filing of a written statement is not a condition precedent for considering an application under Rule 11 of Order VII.”
The petitioner had filed an application seeking rejection of the plaint filed by Vishalakshmi and others on the ground that the said plaint is not properly valued and a proper Court fee has not been paid.
However, the trial court rejected the application vide order dated 28.11.2023 on the ground that a written statement had not been filed by the petitioner, who is defendant No.3 and without a claim being raised in the written statement regarding the adequacy or otherwise of the Court fee, an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure could not have been filed.
The bench noted that Order VII Rule 11 (b), CPC provides for rejection of the plaint if the relief claimed is undervalued and if the plaintiff on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a stipulated time, fails to do so.
It further stated that clause (c) provides for when the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a fixed time, fails to do so.
Then it said, “It is trite law that for consideration of application filed under Rule 11 of Order VII, only the averments made in the plaint are required to be considered and not that in the written statement.”
Following this, the court held “The Trial Court dismissed the application under Rule 11 of Order VII (b) and (c) on the ground that the written statement has not been filed. There being a bar for the Court to look into the written statement while considering an application under Rule 11 of Order VII, it is not permissible for the Trial Court to dismiss the application on the ground that the written statement was not filed.”
The court also clarified that as far as filing an application under Rule 11 of Order VII was concerned, there was no requirement to file a written statement before it. It stated that irrespective of whether an application under Rule 11 of Order VII is considered or not, the time period fixed under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, as amended, for filing the written statement would continue to hold and the written statement would have to be filed within the time frame prescribed.
Allowing the petition the court set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the trial court to consider the application under Rule 11 of Order VII in terms of the above observations.
Appearance: Advocate Anand Rama K for Petitioner.
Advocate S. Rajashekar for Respondents
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 297
Case Title: Admar Mutt Kaliya Mardana Krishna Devaru v Vishalakshmi & Others
Case No: CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.12 OF 2024
Click Here To Read/Download Order