Back
BANKIM N.MEHTA, JAYANT PATEL
Chandrakant Kantilal Jhaveri – Appellant
Versus
Madhuriben Gautambhai – Respondent
Key Points: - The court held that if the plaint does not disclose a valid cause of action for the relief prayed, the order of dismissal under Order VII Rule 11 is maintainable. (!) - The assessment under Order VII Rule 11 focuses on the averments in the plaint, with the defence not normally considered at this stage. (!) - The plaint must contain material facts constituting the cause of action; mere use of words like "fraud" or "collusion" without particulars is insufficient. (!) (!) - The court may apply statutory law and case law to the averments in the plaint to determine if a valid cause of action exists. (!) (!) - If there is no proper grounding of fraud/collusion with particulars (dates, events, parties, mode), the suit can be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11. (!) (!) - The remedy under Order VII Rule 11 is available even after issues have been framed; timing does not bar consideration of such pleas. (!) - The appellate court may review aspects of the case beyond what the trial court considered, but still bound to assess whether the plaint discloses a cause of action. (!) (!) - The court emphasized the duty to reject a plaint that does not disclose a cause of action and to scrutinize the plaint and annexed documents for this purpose. (!) (!) - Pleadings must state material facts, with particulars when misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, etc., are relied upon. (!) (!) - If the plaint or prayers rely on transmitted documents but fail to disclose a valid cause of action, dismissal follows. (!) (!)
Jayant Patel, J.—The present appeal arises against the Judgement and order dated 03.04.2006 passed below applications Exh.19 and 23 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, whereby the Suit has been dismissed.
2. The short facts of the case appears to be that the plaintiff (for the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their status in the plaint or in the present appeal) filed the suit being Special Civil Suit No. 23/04 in the Court of the Civil Judge (SD) Ahmedabad Rural for a declaration that the transaction of the Sale Deeds for the land at Survey Nos. 436/1 and 436/2 at village Gota, Taluka Dascroi Ahmedabad as bogus and unauthorised and be quashed and set aside. It was also prayed that the decree be passed for cancellation of the documents referred to in Paras 3 and 4 executed in favour of the defendants 1 and 2. The third prayer in the suit was that the defendant No. 2 be directed to handover the possession of the property to plaintiff. The fourth prayer in the suit was that defendant No. 2 be restrained from transferring or alienating the property by sale, mortgage or gift in any manner.
3. The plaintiff in the said suit submitted an
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
