SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Guj) 2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
M.R. Shah and A.S. Supehia, JJ.
Parmar Narmadaben Wd/o. Vithalbhai Ramabhai & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Amratlal Motibhai Prajapati & Ors. - Defendants
First Appeal No. 57 of 2016 with Civil Application No. 160 of 2016
Decided On : 09-06-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :Mr. Hriday Buch, Advocate with Mr. Masudiqbal H. Rathod, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. R.S. Sanjanwala, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Parthiv B. Shah, Advocate.

Important Point—Provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 (a) of CPC are required to be considered very strictly.

Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 7 Rule 11 (a)—Rejection of plaint—In a given case plaintiff may not get any relief as prayed—But if plaint discloses cause of action and plaintiff has a right to sue, plaint cannot be rejected in exercise of powers under Order 7, Rule 11 (a) of CPC—Cause of action pleaded in plaint is playing fraud and non-payment of sale consideration alleged to have been paid by cheques and so stated in sale deed—It cannot be said that on bare reading of plaint it does not disclose any cause of action at all—Provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 (a) of CPC are required to be considered very strictly and in exceptional circumstances as plaint is being rejected at threshold and plaintiff shall be non-suited without trial and before proceedings of suit are commenced.

       Result—Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. Shah, J.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 16.10.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as "learned Judge") below Exh.14 application in Special Civil Suit No.51/2015 by which the learned Judge has allowed the said application preferred by the original defendant and consequently has rejected the plaint in exercise of powers under Order 7, Rule 11 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC"), the original plaintiff has preferred the present First Appeal.

1.1. As earlier the Division Bench has issued the notice for final hearing and relevant material is before the Court and with the consent of learned advocates appearing for respective parties the present First Appeal is taken up for final hearing today and we have heard the learned advocates appearing for respective parties at length.

2. Facts leading to the present First Appeal in nut-shell are as under:

2.1. That the disputed land in question was owned by one Vitthalbhai Ramabhai who died on 10.02.2003. That the widow of Vitthalbhai Ramabhai (the original plaintiff), her daughter and son viz. Hemlataben and Mahendrabhai and the legal heirs of the deceased Vitthalbhai Ramabhai executed a registered Sale Deed dated 04.10.2014, which was presented before the office of the Sub-Registrar. That in the Sale Deed the sale consideration was stated to be Rs. 10 Crores and the same was alleged to have been paid by cheques to the executant of the Sale Deed. According to the plaintiff no such sale consideration was paid and therefore, according to the plaintiff, the Sale Deed was without consideration. Therefore, the original plaintiff - Narmadaben widow of Vitthalbhai Ramabhai instituted a Special Civil Suit No.51/2015 in the Court of learned Principal Civil Judge, Vadodara (learned Civil Judge, Senior Division), against the respondent herein - original defendant. That the said suit filed by the original plaintiff was for a declaration and permanent injunction more particularly to set aside the registered Sale Deed to declare it as null and void. That in the said suit the cause of action pleaded by the original plaintiff was non-payment of the sale consideration. It was also averred in the plain that though valuation of the land in question was approximately Rs. 25 Crores in the Sale Deed, the same was mentioned as Rs. 10 Crores only. It was specifically averred in the plaint that not a single amount has been paid as alleged in the Sale Deed and not a single amount has been received by the original plaintiff through cheques as stated in the Sale Deed. Therefore, it was a specific case on behalf of the plaintiff that the Sale Deed is without consideration.

2.2. Having been served with the summons of the suit, the respondent herein - original defendant submitted the application below Exh.14 to reject the plaint in exercise of powers under Order 7, Rule 11 (a) and (e) of the CPC. It was the case on behalf of the original defendant that suit is barred by law in view of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and therefore, considering Order 7, Rule 11 (d) of the CPC, the plaint is liable to be rejected. It was also the case on behalf of the original defendant that the plaint is also liable to be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 (a) of the CPC as no cause of action is disclosed in the plaint.

2.3. That by impugned order the learned Judge has allowed the application Exh.14 and has rejected the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) of the CPC.

2.4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Judge below Exh.14 in Special Civil Suit No.51/2015 rejecting the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) of the CPC, the original plaintiff has preferred the present First Appeal.

3. Shri Hriday Buch, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant herein - original plaintiff and Shri R.S. Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate has appeared with Shri Parthi
































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top