Plaint Cannot Be Rejected In Part Under Order VII Rule 11 Of CPC: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (31.10.2023) held that a plaint cannot be rejected in part under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court also reiterated that when a plaint does not disclose a cause of action, it is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11.“In simple terms, the true test is first to read the plaint meaningfully and as a whole, taking it to be...
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (31.10.2023) held that a plaint cannot be rejected in part under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court also reiterated that when a plaint does not disclose a cause of action, it is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11.
“In simple terms, the true test is first to read the plaint meaningfully and as a whole, taking it to be true. Upon such reading, if the plaint discloses a cause of action, then the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC must fail. To put it negatively, where it does not disclose a cause of action, the plaint shall be rejected” a bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia observed.
In the matter at hand, the plaintiffs had filed a suit for partition and separate possession. The Defendants sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11, CPC. The Plaintiffs and Defendants No. 1 to 3 were members of a joint family owning properties under Schedule A and B of the plaint.
The Trial Court dismissed the application for rejection of plaint on the ground that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action. However, the High Court allowed the application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC in part, and rejected the Plaint with respect to the Schedule-A property in the plaint.
The High Court observed that the property in schedule A of the plaint was sold back in 1919 through a registered Sale Deed and that the Plaintiffs did not deny the sale. The High Court noted that the Plaintiffs did not produce any evidence to challenge the Sale Deed.
The Apex Court held that the Karnataka High Court misapplied the well-established principles of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. The Apex Court also held that rejecting the plaint in part as the High Court had done was also contrary to law. The Apex Court thus allowed the appeal.
The Apex Court observed that the High Court committed an error by examining the merits of the matter and pre-judged the truth, legality and validity of the sale deed.
“Simply put, the High Court could not have anticipated the truth of the averments by assuming that the alleged previous sale of the property is complete or that it has been acted upon. The approach adopted by the High Court is incorrect and contrary to the well-entrenched principles of considering an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC” the Apex Court said.
The Apex Court thus set aside the order of the High Court and dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, and restored the suit even with respect to properties mentioned under Schedule A of the Plaint.
“In view of the above referred principle, we have no hesitation in holding that the High Court committed an error in rejecting the plaint in part with respect to Schedule-A property and permitting the Plaintiffs to prosecute the case only with respect to Schedule-B property. This approach while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC is impermissible. We, therefore, set aside the judgment and order of the High Court even on this ground” the Court concluded.
Adv. P V Yogeshwaran, Adv. M.A. Chinnasamy, Adv. C Rubavathi, Adv. C Raghavendren, Adv. V Senthil Kumar, Adv. Devendra Pratap Singh and Adv. Ashis Upadhay appeared for the Appellants.
Adv. S. Nandakumar, Adv. Deepika Nandakumar, Adv. Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv. Rajeev Gupta and Adv. Naresh Kumar appeared for the Respondents.
Case Title: KUM. GEETHA, D/O LATE KRISHNA & ORS v. NANJUNDASWAMY & ORS. CIVIL APPEAL No. 7413 of 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 940