Order VII Rule 11 - A plaint cannot be rejected in part: Supreme Court

 

The plaint as presented must proceed as a whole or can be rejected as whole  not in  part.

The instant case dealt with the Hon’ble Supreme Court to decide on two questions:-

1.        true and correct application of the principle underlying the rejection of plaints under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

2.        Legality of rejection of plaint in part.

            As reported, the instant appeal came up for consideration before the Supreme Court due to error committed by High Court of Karnataka by misapplying well established principles of Order VII Rule 11 and rejecting the plaint in part with respect to Schedule ‘A’ property and permitting the plaintiff to prosecute the case only with respect to schedule ‘B’ property.

 

Fact is the appellant filed a suit for partition and separate possession in respect of property scheduled as ‘A’ and ‘B’’ in the plaint. After four years of institution of suit, defendants filed a petition for seeking rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11. The Trial Court dismissed the application of defendants because the plaint did not disclose cause of action. Whereas the High Court allowed the application under Order VII rule 11 in part in respect of the property scheduled as ‘A’ only reasoning that the plaintiff neither produced any evidence to challenge the sale deed nor sought any declaratory relief against the sale deed in respect of the said property.

The learned Counsel for appellant submitted that the High Court has committed an error in allowing the revision and application under Order VII Rule 11. Whereas the learned counsel for Respondent supported the reasoning and conclusion of High Court.

The Hon’ble Court relied on the decision of the case, Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (2020), [click here]  which laid down relevant principles on the application of Order VII Rule 11.

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 – Court observed.

Accepting the error committed by High Court in examining the merits of the matter, Apex Court said that 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 and that the approach adopted is incorrect and contrary to the well-entrenched principles of considering an application under Order  VII Rule 11, CPC.

 

The Hon’ble Apex Court gave another reason as to why the judgment of High Court is not sustainable. The reason is, in an application under Order VII Rule 11, a plaint cannot be rejected in part which is well established in the decision of case,  Madhav Prasad Aggarwal vs. Axis Bank Ltd. (2019) 7 SCC 158 wherein it was held –

 

The Court held that it is not permissible to reject plaint qua any particular portion of a plaint including against some of the defendant(s) and continue the same against the others. In no uncertain terms the Court has held that if the plaint survives against certain defendant(s) and/or properties, Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC will have no application at all, and the suit as a whole must then proceed to trial.

 

The plaint as presented must proceed as a whole or can be rejected as whole  not in  part – Madhav Prasad decision reads.

 

Therefore the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court and directed the Trial Court to take up the trial and dispose of the suit expeditiously in respect of the property scheduled as ‘A’ and ‘B’.

Coram:

Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia

Case:

Kum. Geetha, D/O Late Krishna & Ors. Versus Nanjundaswamy & Ors. (CIVIL APPEAL No. 7413 of 2023)

Date of Judgment: 31 October 2023.

Click to view judgment.