1999 Supreme(P&H) 704

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Swatanter Kumar, J.
Abn-amro Bank
Versus
Punjab Urban Planning And Development Authority
Civil Revisions No. 2703 of 1997,
Decided On : JULY 22, 1999

The Court held that the trial Court did not err in rejecting the application for rejection of the plaint as the plaint, read with the documents placed on record by the plaintiff, constituted a complete cause of action entitling the plaintiff to determination of his suit on merits.

Headnote:

ORDER 7 RULE 11 CPC - REJECTION OF PLAINT - CAUSE OF ACTION - WAIVER AND ESTOPPEL - FULL AND FINAL SETTLEMENT - FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION - APPLICABILITY OF ORDER 6 RULE 16 CPC - PARTIAL REJECTION OF PLAINT - JURISDICTION OF COURT - TRIAL COURT'S DISCRETION - EXPEDIENT DISPOSAL OF SUIT:

Fact of the Case:

Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 65,58,981.00 with future interest at 17% per annum and for declaration that the agreement/waiver letter dated 7-7-1993 written by the plaintiff to the defendant was not binding on the plaintiff. The defendant filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint. The trial Court dismissed the application and allowed the application of the plaintiff for admission and denial of documents. The defendant filed a written statement taking preliminary objections, including that the suit was not maintainable and was barred by accord and satisfaction, waiver and estoppel.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the trial Court did not err in rejecting the application for rejection of the plaint. The plaint, read with the documents placed on record by the plaintiff, constituted a complete cause of action entitling the plaintiff to determination of his suit on merits. The letter dated 7-7-1993 in fact stood revoked by subsequent correspondence between the parties and sufficient grounds had been taken in the plaint to satisfy the basic ingredients under Sections 13 to 19A of the Contract Act. The pleas taken and documents read in support thereof rendered the letter dated 7-7-1993 ineffective and inconsequential.

Issues: 1. Whether the trial Court erred in rejecting the application for rejection of the plaint? 2. Whether the plaint, read with the documents placed on record by the plaintiff, constituted a complete cause of action entitling the plaintiff to determination of his suit on merits? 3. Whether the letter dated 7-7-1993 stood revoked by subsequent correspondence between the parties? 4. Whether sufficient grounds had been taken in the plaint to satisfy the basic ingredients under Sections 13 to 19A of the Contract Act?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that for determination of an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court has to look into the plaint and the documents filed by the plaintiff along with plaint or subsequent thereto but prior to the hearing of such application. The defence raised by the defendants in his written statement or the documents filed along therewith certainly falls beyond the zone of consideration, where an application for rejection of a plaint is being considered by the Court. 2. The Court held that the plaint and the documents filed on record fully disclosed an actionable cause in favour of the plaintiff. The basic ingredients of fraud or misrepresentation had been stated and the averments in the plaint validly constituted a ground of fraud, misrepresentation or undue influence. 3. The Court held that the letter dated 7-7-1993 was challenged by the plaintiff on the ground of misrepresentation, concealment of facts and fraudulent conduct on the part of the defendant. The plaintiff had served a notice on the defendant withdrawing the letter dated 7-7-1993 much prior to the institution of the suit and calling upon the defendant to pay its amounts. 4. The Court held that the pleas taken and documents read in support thereof rendered the letter dated 7-7-1993 ineffective and inconsequential. The Court must see the cumulative effect of the case pleaded in the plaint supported by the documents, if filed by the plaintiff, to examine the totality of the consequences arising from the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for limited scope and it is neither permissible nor proper for this Court to take into consideration the defence of the defendants.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the defendant. The Court also requested the trial Court to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible, in any case within one year from the date a copy of the order is placed on the record of the trial Court.