Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B P Jeevan Reddy, K S Paripoornan
DELHI WAKF BOARD, APPELLANT
VERSUS
JAGDISH KUMAR NARANG AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS.
Civil Appeal No. 680 of 1997 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 18034 of 1993), decided on February 7, 1997.
Order VII Rule 13 - Fresh Suit - The court held that the present suit is not barred by the earlier order rejecting the plaint in the earlier suit based on Order VII Rule 13, which allows the plaintiff to present a fresh plaint in respect of the same cause of action.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff/appellant filed a fresh suit on the same cause of action after the earlier suit was rejected under Order VII Rule 11. The trial court dismissed the second suit as barred by the order rejecting the plaint in the earlier suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the present suit is not barred by the earlier order rejecting the plaint in the earlier suit based on Order VII Rule 13, and allowed the appeal accordingly.
Issues: The issue was whether the present suit is barred by virtue of the order rejecting the earlier suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied Order VII Rule 13, which states that the rejection of the plaint on any grounds shall not preclude the plaintiff from presenting a fresh plaint in respect of the same cause of action.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the trial court was directed to consider the expeditious disposal of the suit according to law.
ORDER
1. Special leave granted.
2. Heard the counsel for the parties.
3. The plaintiff/appellant had filed a suit earlier which was rejected under Order VII Rule 11. That was in the year 1984. In the year 1986 he filed a fresh suit on the same cause of action. The second suit has been dismissed by the trial court as barred by the order rejecting the plaint in the earlier suit. An appeal preferred against that order has been dismissed by the High Court. In our opinion the Courts below were not right in holding that the present suit is barred by virtue of the order rejecting the earlier suit.
4. Order VII Rule 13 reads as under :
"13. Where rejection of plaint does not preclude presentation of fresh plaint. - The rejection of the plaint on any of the grounds hereinbefore mentioned shall not of its own force preclude the plaintiff from presenting a I fresh plaint in respect of the same cause of action."
5. In view of the said clear rule, we hold that the present suit is not barred by the earlier order rejecting the plaint in the earlier suit. We express no opinion on any other question. The trial court may consider the expeditious disposal of the suit according to law. The appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
