2007 Supreme(SC) 1271

2007(7) Supreme 188
Supreme Court of india
(From Delhi High Court)
Tarun Chatterjee & P. Sathasivam, JJ.
Ram Prakash Gupta — Petitioner
versus
Rajiv Kumar Gupta & Ors. — Respondents
Appeal (civil) 4626 of 2007
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8781 of 2006)
Decided on : 03-10-2007

important point
There cannot be any compartmentalization, dissection, segregation and inversions of the language of various paragraphs in the plaint; and only a part of the plaint cannot be rejected u/O. VII, R. 11.

Headnote:(a)Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order VII, Rule 11 – The relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application under O. VII, R. 11, are the averments in the plaint – The averments in the plaint are germane: the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant.(Para 11)

       (2003) 1 SCC 557; (1998) 2 SCC 70 – Relied upon.

       (b)Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order VII Rule 11 and Order X – If on a meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious and meritless Trial court should exercise the power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled – Any attempt to create an illusion of a cause of action, has to be nipped in the bud under Order X of the Code.(Para 13)

       (1977) 4 SCC 467 – Relied upon.

       (c)Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order VII, rule 11(d) – There cannot be any compartmentalization, dissection, segregation and inversions of the language of various paragraphs in the plaint – Plaint as a whole have to be seen to find out whether clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII was applicable – If no cause of action is disclosed, the plaint as a whole must be rejected – Only a part of the plaint cannot be rejected. (Paras 14 and 15)

       (1982) 3 SCC 487; (1998)7 SCC 184; (2004) 3 SCC 137 – Relied upon.

       (d)Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 59 – A suit has to be filed within a period of three years from the date of the knowledge – Plaintiff clearly averred in the plaint that the decree passed in Suit No. 183 of 1974 came to the knowledge of the plaintiff in 1986 – Thereafter when Suit No.424 of 1989 was filed, the plaintiff took steps at the earliest and filed the suit for declaration and in alternative for possession – This fact of knowledge in 1986 mentioned in the plaint cannot be termed as inadequate and incomplete – Hence the suit is not barred by limitation – Courts below erred in their decisions – Case restored to its original file for disposal.(Paras 18, 19 and 21)

       Facts of the case:

       In the year 1957, since the appellant was a handicapped person, the father of the appellant purchased a piece of land in the name of and for the benefit of the appellant herein, who was minor at that time by way of registered sale deed dated 02.09.1957. The father of the appellant died in the year 1965 and at the time of his death, the plot underneath the house in question was lying vacant. The appellant was actively engaged in the business, therefore, in the year 1966 he raised a full fledged 3 storey house on the said plot with his funds. Moreover, a loan of Rs.30,000/- was also taken from the Life Insurance Corporation by the appellant for construction of the house and later on it was repaid. After constructing the house, the first floor of the building was let out to one Aseema Architect by the appellant in the year 1969. The appellant and his family and the respondents’ father and his family were living together in House No.107, Chawri Bazar, Delhi. Since relations between the brothers were cordial, on request of the respondents’ father, the appellant allowed him to use the second floor of the house as a licensee. In the year 1974, respondents’ father played a fraud and filed two suits in the name of his sons bearing Suit No.183 of 1974 and 133 of 1974 for declaration and possession of the ground/first floor. There is no dispute of ownership of the appellant as far as the second and third floors of the house are concerned. In September 1986, after the death of their father, the respondents claimed the possession of the first floor of the building on the basis that they had obtained some decree from the Court, the particulars of which were not disclosed. In spite of best efforts, the appellant could not obtain the details of the case. Therefore, no action could be taken. Aseema Architect, who was paying rent to the appellant, stopped payment of rent and in the year 1989, filed interpleader suit No. 424 of 1989 alleging therein that there is a bona fide dispute about the person(s) to whom the rent is payable. In that suit the details of the decree obtained fraudulently in the year 1976 was disclosed. On 7.2.1990, the appellant herein filed Suit No. 378 of 1993 before the Additional Dist. Judge, Delhi. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the appellant.

       Aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, the appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court of Delhi. The High Court dismissed the appeal recording that since there cannot be a partial rejection of suit, hence the entire suit has to be dismissed.

       Findings of the Court:

       High Court erred in dismissing the suit on ground of limitation.

       Result : Impugned judgment set aside, case restored to its original filed for disposal.