Sajjan Singh vs Jasvir Kaur - 2023 Supreme(SC) 1314

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(SC) 1314

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.S. BOPANNA, M.M. SUNDRESH, JJ.
Sajjan Singh – Appellant
Versus
Jasvir Kaur & Ors. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4221 of 2023
Decided On : 06-07-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Himanshu Sharma, Mr. Ram Niwas Sharma, Ms. Aditi Sharma, Mr. Nitin Sharma, Mr. Nikhil Bajaj, Mr. Digvijay Singh Raghav, Mr. L.S. Mann, Mr. Arun Kumar, Mr. Rahul Jasoria, Ms. Anshita
For the Respondent: Mr. Abhinay, Ms. Sumati Jund, Mr. L.K. Srivastava

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Suit related to sale deeds - High Court allowed Revision Petition, rejecting plaint based on insufficient prayer - Court held the High Court's decision unjustified, stating that appropriate prayer is a matter for trial, not for rejection at this stage. (Paras 3-5)

(B) Jurisdiction of trial courts - The court noted the necessity of allowing the trial court to consider all admissible contentions instead of dismissing the plaint prematurely. (Paras 5-6)

Facts of the case:
The appellant filed a suit, and respondents sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11, arguing a lack of appropriate prayer regarding the sale deeds. The trial court initially dismissed the application but was overturned by the High Court in revision.

Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court held that the High Court was unjustified in rejecting the plaint and restored the civil suit for further proceedings.

Issues: The main issue was whether the absence of a specific prayer regarding the legality of sale deeds warranted rejection of the plaint.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the lack of an explicit prayer regarding sale deeds does not provide grounds for dismissal of the suit at this stage, emphasizing that these matters should be resolved during the trial.

Result: Order of the High Court set aside; civil suit restored for proceedings.

Table of Content
1. appeal disposed along with pending applications. (Para 2 , 8)
2. high court allowed revision petition and rejected plaint. (Para 3)
3. grievances concerning court fee and prayer adequacy are for trial. (Para 4 , 5)
4. high court order is set aside; case restored. (Para 6)
5. contentions in application open for written statement. (Para 7)

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the appeal papers.

3. In a suit filed by the appellant herein, the respondents filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) which was, at the first instance, dismissed by the Trial Court through its order dated 30.10.2017. The respondents were therefore before the High Court in a Revision Petition. The High Court having considered the matter, has through its order dated 25.03.2019, allowed the Revision Petition, and as a consequence, the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC was allowed and the plaint was rejected. It is in that light, the appellant is before this Court.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we have taken note that the grievance essentially put forth by the respondents for which an application under Order VII Rule 11 was filed, is that the appellant herein, had not sought for an appropriate prayer to declare the sale deeds dated 03.12.2015 and 26.02.2016 as illegal, null and void and no court fee in that regard was paid.

5. To that extent, we take note that the prayer, as made, in any event, had been valued and the court fee has been paid. Whether an appropriate prayer should have sought, is a matter ultimately to be decided in the suit and not an issue to be considered while deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, in the manner in which it had been done in the facts and circumstances arising in the instant case. Therefore, to that extent, we are of the opinion that the High court was not justified.

6. Hence, the Order dated 25.03.2019 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh is set aside. The Civil Suit bearing C.S. No. 192/2016 dated 26.09.2015 is restored to the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge (SD), Khamnon, District Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab to proceed further in the matter.

7. The contentions, as put forth by the respondents herein, in the Order VII Rule 11 application, is open to be taken up in the written statement and the Trial Court will frame appropriate issues in that regard and all contentions are left open for the parties to be urged in that regard.

8. Appeal is accordingly disposed of along with the pending application(s), if any.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document