Back
2007 Supreme(Cal) 18
High Court Of Calcutta
Aniruddha Bose, J.
APEEJAY HOUSE PVT.LTD. - Appellant
Versus
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK - Respondent
C. S. 302 Of 2005
Decided On : 01/15/2007
ANINDYA MITRA, Jayanta Mitra, JISHNU CHOWDHURY, Pradip Kumar Ghosh
Substantial compliance with the requirements of Order VII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is sufficient for proper institution of a suit.
Headnote:
PLEADINGS - SUFFICIENCY - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, ORDER VII, RULE 1 - REQUIREMENTS - COMPLIANCE - DISMISSAL OF SUIT - JURISDICTION - SUIT FOR POSSESSION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY - ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT - VALUATION OF SUIT - STATEMENT IN PLAINT - SUFFICIENCY - COURT FEES - MAXIMUM COURT FEES PAID - STATEMENT IN PLAINT - SUFFICIENCY.
Fact of the Case:
Suit for possession of immovable property - Plaintiff alleging monthly tenancy determined by notice - Defendant failing to vacate premises - Suit instituted for possession - Defendant seeking dismissal of suit for lack of proper pleading - Contention that particulars regarding cause of action, jurisdiction, and value of subject matter not disclosed - Plaintiff submitting that suit maintainable as framed.
Finding of the Court:
Plaint contained sufficient particulars to satisfy requirements of Order VII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure - Statement of date on which cause of action arose not mandatory if ascertainable from pleadings - Facts pleaded showing when cause of action arose and that court had jurisdiction - Valuation of suit over Rs. 50 lakhs met requirement of both jurisdiction and court-fees - Specific statement regarding value of subject matter for purposes of jurisdiction and court-fees not necessary.
Issues: Whether the plaint in the suit for possession of immovable property was defective for non-compliance with the requirements of Order VII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: Requirements of Order VII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure are mandatory and must be complied with for proper institution of a suit - However, substantial compliance with the requirements is sufficient - Plaint need not contain a specific statement of the date on which the cause of action arose if it can be ascertained from the pleadings - Statement of facts showing that the court has jurisdiction is sufficient even if not in a separate paragraph - Valuation of the suit over Rs. 50 lakhs meets the requirement of both jurisdiction and court-fees, and a specific statement regarding the value of the subject matter for purposes of jurisdiction and court-fees is not necessary.
Final Decision: Application for dismissal of the suit dismissed.
( 1 ) THE instant motion has been taken out by the defendant seeking in substance dismissal of the suit instituted by the plaintiff, primarily claiming decree for khas and vacant possession of certain portion of the premises No. 15, Park Street. This portion of the premises was let out to the petitioner/defendant. The case of the plaintiff as made out in the plaint is that they had let out the subject property to the defendant as monthly tenant, and the monthly lease was determined by a notice of termination issued on 8th October, 2005. The suit was instituted upon the expiry of the term of the notice as the defendant did not vacate the premises in question.
( 2 ) THE ground on which the dismissal of this suit has been prayed for is lack of proper pleading. The contention of the defendant is that the particulars regarding the facts constituting the cause of action and when it arose, the facts showing how this Court has the jurisdiction and the statement regarding the value of the subject-matter of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction and of Court-fees have not been disclosed. The requirement for disclosure of these particulars and contained in clauses (e), (f) and (i) of Rule 1 order 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the "code", in short ).
( 3 ) MR. Pradip Kumar Ghose, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant argued that in view of the provisions of Rule 1 (3) Order 4 of the Code introduced to the Code by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002, the compliance of the above referred provisions of order 7 of the Code are mandatory and the suit cannot be held to be duly instituted, and hence the plaint ought to be taken off the file.
( 4 ) BEFORE I proceed to consider the submissions of the learned Counsels for the respective parties, I shall refer to the provisions of the Code whose construction is necessary for effective disposal of the present proceeding. These provisions are Rule 1 of Order 7 and Rule 1 of Order 4 of the Code, which are reproduced below: "order 7 plaint
1. Particulars to be contained in plaint.- The plaint shall contain the following particulars: (a) the name of the Court in which the suit is brought; (b) the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff; (c) the name, description and place of residence of the defendant, so far as they can be ascertained; (d) where the plaintiff or the defendant is a minor or a person of unsound mind, a statement to that effect; (e) the facts constituting the cause of action and when it arose; (f) the facts showing that the Court has jurisdiction; (g) the relief which the plaintiff claims; (h) where the plaintiff has allowed a set-off or relinquished a portion of his claim, the amount so allowed or relinquished; and (i) a statement of the value of the subject-matter of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction and of Court-fees, so far as the case admits.
ORDER 4 institution OF SUITS
1. Suit to be commenced by plaint.- (1) Every suit shall be instituted by presenting a or such officer as it appoints in this behalf. (2) Every plaint shall comply with the rules contained in Orders 6 and 7, so far as they are applicable. (3) The plaint shall not be deemed to be duly instituted unless it complies with the requirements specified in sub-rules (1) and (2 ). "
( 5 ) MR. Ghosh submitted that the pleadings in the plaint do not satisfy the requirements of clauses (e), (f) and (i) of Rule (1) of Order 7 of the Code. He has mainly relied on three authorities, being Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. vs. Shalimar Works Ltd. , AIR 1915 Cal 681; Kalyani Dassi vs. Ganesh Chandra sreemany and Ors. , reported in AIR 1932 Cal 259 and Tilakraj vs. Prithi Pal, air 1961 Jandk page 61 in support of his submissions.
( 6 ) TO this argument, the defence of Mr. Anindya Kumar Mitra, learned senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiff, broadly is that the suit being for recovery of possession of immovable property, this is a "suit for land" with
