VERY IMPORTANT POINT
The application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC 1908 ought to be decided on the allegations in the plaint and filing of the written statement by the contesting defendant is irrelevant and unnecessary.

Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code, Order 7, Rule 11 - Rejection of plaint - Factors to be considered- The appellant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 for rejection of plaint under Clauses (a) and (b) of Rule 11 Order 7 C.P.C- The respondents also filed an application under Order 8 Rule 10 ef=act:10444>C.P.C. to pronounce judgment in the suits as the appellant did not file his written statement- Application under Order 8 SC.P.C. the appellant directed to file written statement- High court confirmed the order- Not proper- Relevant facts for deciding an application under O7 R11are the averments in the plaint- The pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage, therefore, a direction to file the written statement without deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. held to be procedural irregularity touching the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial Court- Order of the High Court and trial court set aside- Matter remitted to trial court to proceed according to law. [Paras7, 8 and 9]

Judgement Key Points

Case Summary

The appeals challenged a High Court order affirming the trial court's direction to the appellants (defendants) to file written statements before deciding their application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaints in suits filed by respondents seeking declarations that prior judgments, decrees, and orders were null, void, and non-binding.[1000075200001][1000075200002][1000075200011][1000075200003]

The trial court had dismissed the defendants' Order VII Rule 11 application (invoking clauses (a) and (d)) and an application under Section 151 CPC to prioritize it, while also rejecting plaintiffs' application under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC; the High Court confirmed this and directed framing of issues.[1000075200003]

The core issue was whether an Order VII Rule 11 CPC application must be decided based solely on the plaint's averments, rendering the defendant's written statement irrelevant.[1000075200006]

The Court held that relevant facts for Order VII Rule 11 CPC are confined to the plaint's allegations; trial courts may exercise this power at any stage before trial conclusion, and defendant pleas in written statements are wholly irrelevant, making pre-decision directions to file them a jurisdictional irregularity and non-exercise of power.[1000075200007][1000075200008][judgement_subject][judgement_act_referred]

Order VII Rule 11 CPC provides for plaint rejection where it discloses no cause of action [(a)], relief is undervalued without correction [(b)], insufficiently stamped without supply [(c)], barred by law [(d)], not in duplicate [(e)], or non-compliant with Rule 9 [(f)]. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

The impugned orders were set aside, and the matter remitted to the trial court to decide the Order VII Rule 11 applications on plaint averments after hearing parties; appeals allowed without costs.[1000075200009][1000075200010] (!) (!) (!)

ORDER

Leave is granted.

2. These appeals arise from the common order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Indore Bench) in Civil Revision Petition Nos. 256 of 2002 and 257 of 2002 dated 7th May, 2002.

3. These cases have a chequered history but in the view we have taken, we do not consider it necessary to refer to the facts in any detail. Suffice it to say that Respondent No. 7 in the appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 13234 of 2002 and the sole respondent in the appeal arising out of SLP (C) 14577 of 2002 filed suits in February, 2002, out of which these appeals arise. The eighth defendant in the suits is the appellant in these two appeals. The said respondents-plaintiffs in the suits claimed, inter alia, the following relief :

"(2). That it be declared that the Judgement and Decree passed by the III Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur in Special Civil Suit No. 147 of 1967, Judgement and Decree passed by IV Additional District Judge, Nagpur in regular Civil Appeal No. 16 of 1987, and approving the same in the Judgement and Decree passed by the Hon ble Bombay High Court, Bench at Nagpur in Second Appeal No. 132 of 1992, and while maintaining this Judgement and Decree, Judgement and order passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 25004/96 and in Review Petition No. 1075/97 and order passed in various Revenue case No. 8/1996-97, are illegal, not in existence, null and void and are not within the jurisdiction and therefore are not binding on the plaintiff."

4. The appellant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the CPC ) in the suits praying the court to dismiss the suits on the ground stated therein. Before us, it is stated that the plaint is liable to be rejected under Clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII CPC. While so, the said respondents also filed an application under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC to pronounce judgement in the suits as the appellant did not file his written statement. There was also an application by the appellant under Section 151 CPC praying the court to decide first the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. By order dated 8th December, 2001, the learned Trial Judge dismissed the application under Order VIII Rule 10 as well as the application filed under Section 151 CPC. Insofar as the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is concerned, the learned Judge directed the appellant to file his written statement. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed aforementioned revision petitions before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh [Indore Bench]. On May 7, 2002, the High Court, while confirming the order of the learned Trial Judge, reiterated the direction given by the learned Trial Judge that the appellant should file his written statement and observed that the trial court shall frame issues of law and facts arising out of pleadings and that the trial Court should record its finding on the preliminary issue in accordance with law before proceeding to try the suit on facts. It is against this order of the High Court that the present appeals have been preferred.

5. Mr. T.R. Andhyarujina, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant in the appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 13234 of 2002 and Mr. R.F. Nariman, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant in the appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 14577 of 2002 have contended that having regard to the very nature of the relief claimed by the plaintiffs, the plaints are liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and that the Court ought to have considered the said application on merits instead of giving direction to file written statement which would amount to not exercising the jurisdiction vested in the court. It is further contended that the High Court also did not appreciate that the plaints do not show any cause of action and that the plaint ought to have been rejected as the suit is barred by the principles of res judicata and lis pendense.

6. Mr. K.K. Venug

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 1243

VERY IMPORTANT POINTThe application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC 1908 ought to be decided on the allegations in the plaint and filing of the written statement by the contesting defendant is irrelevant and unnecessary.

Case Summary

VERY IMPORTANT POINT
The application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC 1908 ought to be decided on the allegations in the plaint and filing of the written statement by the contesting defendant is irrelevant and unnecessary.