Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
Ms Nisha @ Nisaba Godrej & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Mr Chaitanya Kumar Rampal - Respondent
C.R.P. 253 of 2023, CM Appls. No. 47619 of 2023 & 47620 of 2023
Decided On : 15-09-2023
CPC - Civil Suit - 151, 115 - The judgment discusses the application of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC and Section 115 of the CPC in the context of rejecting a plaint and the revisional jurisdiction of the court. The court emphasizes the importance of the averments in the plaint and the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, ultimately upholding the impugned order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, as class-II heirs of the deceased, were sued by the respondent for non-repayment of a loan. The petitioners sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, claiming lack of cause of action and territorial jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the scope of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC and Section 115 of the CPC, emphasizing the importance of the averments in the plaint and the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction. It upheld the impugned order, stating that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and the question of jurisdiction was a mixed question of fact and law.
Issues: The issues revolved around the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC and the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the decision to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC should be based on the averments in the plaint and that the revisional jurisdiction of the court is limited to the question of jurisdiction of the court below.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld, as the court found no error in the decision of the learned Trial Court.
ORDER
Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)
1. The instant petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC"), praying as follows:
"A. Allow the present Petition and thereby, set-aside the Impugned Order dated August 07, 2023 passed by the Ld. Additional District Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in Civil Suit No. 61 of 2021;
B. Allow the present Petition and thereby direct rejection of the Plaint under Order VII Rule, 11 CPC 1908;
C. During the pendency of the present proceedings, stay any proceedings in the Civil Suit bearing No. 61 of 2021 pending before Court of Additional District Judge, Patiala House Courts, Delhi; and
D. pass such other or further relief as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case."
2. Brief facts of the case are reproduced herein below:
a) The petitioners are the Class-II heir of late Sh. H.P.S Mader.
b) On the basis of the plaint filed by the respondent/ plaintiff, it has been alleged that the petitioners took a loan of Rs.25, 87,000/- from the respondent. It has been further alleged by the respondent in his plaint that on 3rd September 2012, a letter of acknowledgment was drawn up according to which the deceased had received a certain amount from the respondent and had further promised to repay such amount within three to four weeks from the date of the said letter.
c) The said loan has also been acknowledged by late H.P.S Mader in Memorandums of Understanding (hereinafter referred to as "MOUs") dated 10th June 2017 and 31st October 2017 has been averred by the respondent in the plaint. Late Sh. H.P.S. Mader issued various cheques amounting to Rs. 25, 87,000/-, in pursuance to the alleged loan and the said cheques were dishonoured due to insufficient funds.
d) Late Sh. H.P.S Mader expired on 5th February 2020 pursuant to which, the petitioners/defendants being class-II legal heirs of the deceased were served with a legal notice dated 22nd October 2019 under the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, for payment of the said amount.
e) Upon non-payment of the said amount by the petitioners, the respondent filed a civil suit bearing no. 61/2021 on 19th January 2021 against the petitioners.
f) The petitioners, i.e., the defendants before the learned Court below then filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that it does not disclose any cause of action. The learned Trial Court dismissed the said application vide the impugned order dated on 7th August 2023. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the impugned order under its revisional jurisdiction.
3. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the plaint filed by the respondent fails to disclose any cause of action since the respondent has impleaded the petitioners as legal heirs of the Late Sh. H.P.S Mader however, the plaint does not adduce any proof regarding the deceased's estate falling upon the petitioners after the death of Late Sh. H.P.S Mader.
4. It is submitted that the amount of the liability is limited to the extent of the estate inherited by the petitioners from late Sh. H.P.S Mader and the petitioners' are not liable for the said amount
5. It is contended that the learned Trial Court lacks the territorial jurisdiction in entertaining the suit since all the petitioners reside in Mumbai.
6. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the plaintiff, in his plaint, has not been able to establish if there is any estate left by the deceased in the favour of the petitioners as per the plaint and the plaintiff is merely seeking to create an illusionary cause of action, which is clearly mislead the learned Trial court.
7. It is further submitted that the impugned order ought to have appreciated that the question of liability of the proposed legal heirs as legal representatives is yet to be dec
The main legal point established is the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC and the importance of the averments in the plaint in deciding the rejection of a plaint u....
The legal representative of a deceased sole proprietor is liable for the debts of the sole proprietor, and the scope of revisional powers under Section 115 of the CPC is limited.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the scope of revisional powers under Section 115 of the CPC and the principles of rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
The judgment establishes the principle that the scope of revisional powers of the High Court under Section 115 of the CPC is limited to the irregular exercise or non-exercise of jurisdiction, and doe....
A plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC unless it clearly discloses no cause of action, with factual disputes requiring resolution in trial.
The grounds for rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC cannot be examined at the stage of defendant's evidence and go into the merits of the suit, which should be decided during the....
The application for rejection of the plaint has to show that the suit is barred by law and the said bar should appear from the pleadings of the plaintiff itself. The court found that the learned Tria....
The question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and cannot be decided based solely on the averments in the plaint. The court emphasized that such issues require evidence and should be ....
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
