SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(SC) 2110

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.P. Mohapatra, Brijesh Kumar, JJ.
Jageshwari Devi and others - Appellants
Versus
Shatrughan Ram - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1456 of 2002 with No. 1457 of 2002
Decided On : 07-02-2002

The court clarified the difference between non-disclosure of cause of action and defective cause of action, and upheld settled principles of law regarding amendment of pleadings.

Headnote:

Amendment of Plaint - Civil Procedure Code - The trial court rightly allowed the amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 and rejected the defendant's petition seeking rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11. The court clarified the difference between non-disclosure of cause of action and defective cause of action, stating that the latter is to be decided during trial of the suit.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff filed a petition for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17, which was allowed by the trial court. The defendant filed a petition seeking rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11, which was rejected by the trial court. The defendant appealed the decision.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the rejection of the plaint was not justified as the plaint disclosed a cause of action, and the amendment sought by the plaintiff was in line with settled principles of law regarding amendment of pleadings.

Issues: The main issue was whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action and whether the amendment sought by the plaintiff was justified.

Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified the difference between non-disclosure of cause of action and defective cause of action, stating that the latter is to be decided during trial of the suit. It also upheld the trial court's decision on allowing the amendment of the plaint.

Final Decision: Both appeals filed by the defendant were dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

ORDER :

D.P. Mohapatra, J.

Leave granted.

2. The order passed by the Patna High Court declining to interfere with the order of the trial court in which the petition filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code for amendment of the plaint was allowed and the petition filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking rejection of the plaint was rejected, is under challenge in these appeals filed by the defendant.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have perused the order of the trial court and of the High Court. We have also perused the plaint filed by the respondent herein. The main ground on which rejection of the plaint was sought was that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action which is a ground specified under Order 7 Rule 11(a) CPC. The trial court on consideration of the averments in the plaint held, and in our view rightly, that it could not be held that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action. It is relevant to state that there is a difference between the non-disclosure of a cause of action and defective cause of action: while the former comes within the scope of Order 7 Rule 11, the latter is to be decided during trial of the suit. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the cause of action disclosed is vague and incomplete, is not a ground for rejection of the plaint, under Order 7 Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code no exception can be taken to the order.

4. The other petition which was filed by the plaintiff was for amendment of the plaint to introduce a prayer for recovery of possession and an averment to the effect that ad valorem court fee is paid on the plaint. This amendment was filed in view of the objection taken by the defendant that a suit for declaration of title simpliciter was not maintainable. The trial court considered the matter on the touchstone of settled principles of law regarding amendment of pleadings and took the view that this was a fit case for allowing the prayer for amendment. We find no illegality in the order.

5. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed.

6. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top