Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA
Taraknath Pyne – Appellant
Versus
Apurba Ash – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Leave is granted to the learned advocate-on- record for the appellant to rectify the defect regarding the preamble of the memorandum of
appeal during the course of the day.
2. At the outset, a question of maintainability
arises with regard to the present second appeal.
3. The brief backdrop is that in a suit filed by the respondents herein, an application filed by the present appellant (defendant in the suit) under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed, thereby rejecting the plaint.
4. Against such deemed decree, a regular first appeal was preferred by the respondents which, by the impugned judgment, was allowed on contest by the First Appellate Court, thereby setting aside the deemed decree of rejection of plaint, giving rise to the present second appeal.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, in support of the maintainability of the present second appeal, cites a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in the matter of Deputy Director, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation vs. Ward Memorial Church School and Anr. reported at 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 2914 where the Hon’ble Larger Bench inter alia observed, while finding that the issue arose as t
An order reversing a trial court's rejection of a plaint is a remand order, not a decree, thus subject to different appeal provisions.
The court established that an order reversing a trial court's rejection of a plaint is a remand order, not a decree, thus subject to different appeal provisions.
The court clarified that appeals can be filed against judgments under amended Rule 1 of Order XLI, emphasizing that headings do not control the clear language of statutory provisions.
The rejection of the plaint of a suit under Order VII Rule 11 is not a decision on a preliminary point and does not fall within the scope of Order XLI Rule 23. The explanation appended to Order XLI R....
Applications for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC can be filed at any stage, but should not be entertained at advanced stages of trial to prevent frivolous litigation.
Revision petitions under Section 115 are non-maintainable against orders passed under Section 96; appeal should be under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 must be supported by clear reasoning, and failure to provide such reasoning renders the order unsustainable.
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
