IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.Subramaniam, J.
P.Thomas and ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Athisayam – Respondent
C.R.P.No.4245 of 2022 and C.M.P.No. 22277 of 2022
Decided On : 27-01-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11(b) - Civil Revision petition is filed challenging fair and decretal order, passed in I.A. in O.S - Revision petitioners are defendants and respondent instituted a suit for partition - Held, Scope of Order VII Rule 11 cannot be expanded beyond circumstances stipulated under Rule 11 - Rule 13 of Order VII contemplates that " rejection of plaint on any of ground, hereinbefore mentioned shall not of its own force, preclude plaintiff from presenting a fresh plaint in respect of same cause of action" - Holistic reading of spirit of Order VII Rule 11 and Rule 13 clarifies that, even in case a plaint is rejected under Order VII Rule 11(b), plaintiff is not precluded from instituting a fresh suit on same cause of action by invoking Order VII Rule 13 of CPC. This being scope of Order VII Rule 11 and Rule 13, Court does not find any infirmity in respect of findings made by Trial Court while dismissing Interlocutory Application filed by Revision Petitioners - CRP dismissed.
ORDER :
Prayer : This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the Fair and Decretal Order dated in O.S.No.1779 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the II- Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.
The Civil Revision petition is filed challenging the fair and decretal order dated 12.09.2022, passed in I.A.No.04 of 2022 in O.S.No.1779 of 2019. The revision petitioners are the defendants and the respondent instituted a suit for partition.
2. During the pendency of the suit, the revision petitioners/defendants filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.4 of 2022, under Order VII Rule 11(b) of CPC, to reject the plaint as not maintainable on the ground that the relief claimed is undervalued and the plaintiffs, at the time of examination, deposed that the value of the suit mentioned in the plaint is incorrect and the difference is of about Rs.16.5 lakhs.
3. Based on the deposition of the defendants while examining the plaintiff, the Interlocutory Application to reject the plaint was filed. The Trial Court considered the issues and found that when the plaintiff is directed to correct the valuation and the plaintiff fails to do so, then only the plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 but not otherwise.
4. With reference to the findings of the Trial Court, it is relevant to consider Order VII Rule 11(b), which enumerates that if the amount of relief that is being demanded by the plaintiff is lesser than the requisite, the plaint can be rejected. Such a claim needs to be corrected within the time which is prescribed by the Court. Such a rejection amounts to the dismissal of the suit. In the present case, no such occurrence happened and the Trial Court found that the petition filed to reject the plaint is not entertainable.
5. The scope of Order VII Rule 11 cannot be expanded beyond the circumstances stipulated under Rule 11. Rule 13 of Order VII contemplates that "the rejection of the plaint on any of the ground, hereinbefore mentioned shall not of its own force, preclude the plaintiff from presenting a fresh plaint in respect of the same cause of action". Holistic reading of the spirit of Order VII Rule 11 and Rule 13 clarifies that, even in case a plaint is rejected under Order VII Rule 11(b), the plaintiff is not precluded from instituting a fresh suit on the same cause of action by invoking Order VII Rule 13 of CPC. This being the scope of the Order VII Rule 11 and Rule 13, this Court does not find any infirmity in respect of the findings made by the Trial Court while dismissing the Interlocutory Application filed by the Revision Petitioners.
6. Accordingly, the fair and decretal order dated 12.09.2022, passed in I.A.No.4 of 2022, in O.S. No.1779 of 2019 is confirmed and thus, the Civil Revision Petition in CRP No.4245 of 2022 stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the miscellaneous petition is closed.
Section 2 (2) C.P.C which defines the expression “decree” and thereafter held that definition of decree in Section 2 (2) C.P.C shall be deemed to include an order rejecting a plaint.
Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 requires specific grounds; issues of valuation and coparcener status must be resolved during the trial.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity to consider only the averments in the plaint while deciding whether a suit is barred by res judicata, as emphasized by the latest jud....
An order rejecting a plaint under CPC is tantamount to a decree, subject to appeal under Section 96.
Against the dismissal of a petition filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, only an appeal will lie and not a revision.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.