The relevant facts to be looked into for deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. are the averments in the plaint. The trial court can exercise the power under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. at any stage of the suit, and for the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11 Order VII C.P.C., the averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage.

Headnote:
Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. - Application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. - [CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE] - [Order VII Rule 11] - The court considered the application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. and held that the relevant facts to be looked into for deciding the application are the averments in the plaint. The trial court can exercise the power under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. at any stage of the suit, and for the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11 Order VII C.P.C., the averments in the plaint are germane; 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 VII Rule 11 C.P.C. cannot but be procedural irregularity touching the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court. The order, therefore, suffers from non-exercising of the jurisdiction vested in the court as well as procedural irregularity. The High Court, however, did not advert to these aspects.
Fact of the Case:

The appeals arose from the common order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Civil Revision Petition Nos. 256 of 2002 and 257 of 2002. The respondents-plaintiffs in the suits claimed relief and the appellant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.) praying the court to dismiss the suits on the ground stated therein. The trial court dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. and directed the appellant to file his written statement. The appellant filed revision petitions before the High Court, which confirmed the order of the trial judge. The present appeals have been preferred against this order of the High Court.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the relevant facts to be looked into for deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. are the averments in the plaint. The trial court can exercise the power under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. at any stage of the suit, and for the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11 Order VII C.P.C., the averments in the plaint are germane; 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 VII Rule 11 C.P.C. cannot but be procedural irregularity touching the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court. The order, therefore, suffers from non-exercising of the jurisdiction vested in the court as well as procedural irregularity. The High Court, however, did not advert to these aspects.
Issues: The main issue was whether an application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. ought to be decided on the allegations in the plaint and filing of the written statement by the contesting defendant is irrelevant and unnecessary.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the relevant facts to be looked into for deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. are the averments in the plaint. The trial court can exercise the power under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. at any stage of the suit, and for the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11 Order VII C.P.C., the averments in the plaint are germane; 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 VII Rule 11 C.P.C. cannot but be procedural irregularity touching the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court. The order, therefore, suffers from non-exercising of the jurisdiction vested in the court as well as procedural irregularity. The High Court, however, did not advert to these aspects.
Final Decision: The civil appeals were allowed, and the cases were remitted to the trial court for deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. on the basis of the averments in the plaint, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the parties in accordance with law.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

The primary consideration in applications under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code is the averments contained in the plaint. The court's decision on such applications should be based solely on these averments, and the defendant's pleas in the written statement are irrelevant at this stage (!) (!) .
The trial court has the authority to exercise its power under Order VII Rule 11 at any point during the proceedings, whether before registering the plaint or before the conclusion of the trial. However, the court must examine the averments in the plaint to determine whether the suit should be dismissed under clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11 (!) (!) .
If the court directs the filing of a written statement without first deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11, this constitutes procedural irregularity and a non-exercise of jurisdiction. Such procedural lapses can affect the validity of the trial court's order (!) (!) .
The appellate or revisional courts should scrutinize whether the trial court has correctly focused on the averments in the plaint when deciding on an application under Order VII Rule 11. Failure to do so may warrant remanding the case for proper adjudication (!) .
The courts are directed to evaluate the application under Order VII Rule 11 based on the facts presented in the plaint, and any order to proceed with filing a written statement without such an evaluation is liable to be set aside (!) (!) .
In the case at hand, the appellate court found that the trial court and the high court failed to consider these procedural requirements properly. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the cases were remitted to the trial court for a proper decision on the application under Order VII Rule 11, based solely on the averments in the plaint and after providing an opportunity for parties to be heard (!) .
The overarching principle is that the focus of the court in such applications is on the sufficiency and substance of the plaint's allegations, not on the defendant's written statement or defenses at that stage (!) (!) .

These points emphasize the importance of proper procedural focus on the plaint's averments when considering applications under Order VII Rule 11 and highlight the procedural irregularities that can arise if courts bypass this requirement.

ORDER

1. 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 S.L.P. (C) No. 13234 of 2002 and the sole respondent in the appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) 14577 of 2002 filed suits in February, 2002, cut 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 Judgment and Decree passed by the III Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur in Special Civil Suit No. 147 of 1967, Judgment and Decree passed by IV Additional District Judge, Nagpur in regular Civil Appeal No. 16 of 1987, and approving the same in the Judgment and Decree passed by the Honble Bombay High Court, Bench at Nagpur in Second Appeal No. 132 of 1992, and while maintaining this Judgment and Decree, Judgement and order passed by the Honble 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 C.P.C. 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 C.P.C. While so, the said respondents also filed an application under Order VIII Rule 10 C.P.C. to pronounce judgment in the suits as the appellant did not file his written statement. There was also an application by the appellant under Section 151 C.P.C. praying the court to decide first the application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. 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 C.P.C. Insofar as the application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. is concerned, the learned Judge directed the appellant to file his written statement. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed afore-mentioned 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 S.L.P. (C) No. 13234 of 2002 and Mr. R.F. Nariman, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant in the appeal arising out of S.L.P.(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 C.P.C. 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 pend

Click Here to Read the rest of this document