Rejection of Plaint--Illusion in the plaint can certainly be unraveled and exposed by the court while dealing with an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC
Rejection of Plaint—Law Summarised

Mr. Rajesh Bindal, J.: - Defendant No. 1 is before this court challenging the order dated 21.5.2011, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by it under Order 7 Rules 10 and 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint, was dismissed.

2. Briefly, the facts are that respondent No. 1-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that agreement dated 6.11.2007 between the parties is null and void and is a result of fraud, forgery and consequential relief of permanent injunction was sought restraining the petitioner from realising the amount/benefit under the alleged non-existent agreement. The suit was filed in January, 2009. It is in the aforesaid suit that application for rejection of the plaint was filed by the petitioner, which was dismissed by the learned court below. The order has been impugned before this court.

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application filed by the petitioner for rejection of the plaint was primarily under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) and (d) CPC. Firstly, the suit is barred by law and secondly, the plaint does not disclose a cause of action. He further submitted that in terms of the provisions of Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the 2002 Act’) and 18 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short, ‘the 1993 Act’), the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred. Even if the plea of fraud is raised, the suit can be tried by Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short, ‘the DRT’). Learned counsel further referred to the pleadings in the plaint in support of his contention. A bare perusal thereof does not make out a case of fraud. The primary relief claimed by the plaintiff in the suit is of injunction, for which there is absolute bar. Respondent No. 1-plaintiff could file cross-objections before DRT.

4. Elaborating the contentions raised on the issue that the suit is barred by law, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Section 34 of the 2002 Act, in turns, provides that no civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or an Appellate Tribunal is empowered to determine. Secondly, it provides that no injunction shall be granted by any court or any other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred under the 1993 Act. The submission is that the aforesaid section is in two parts. First part thereof bars the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain any suit and the second is a bar for any court or other authority to grant injunction. It further provides that injunction cannot be granted in respect of any action taken or to be taken. Meaning thereby even if an action is contemplated, still no injunction can be granted by the court or any other authority.

5. As far as the contention that the suit is barred on account of non-disclosure of cause of action is concerned, the submission is that Order 6 Rule 4 CPC provides that in all cases where a party relies on misrepresentation, fraud etc., the particulars of the dates and items if necessary have to be stated in the pleadings. In the case in hand, the plea regarding fraud is totally vague. No date or any particulars have been furnished.

6. He further submitted that in the cases of fraud, exception has been carved out by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. and others v. Union of India and others, (2004) 4 SCC 311, otherwise the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred. On a perusal of the pleadings in the plaint, the court has to find out at the very initial stage as to whether there is triable issue of fraud. In the absence thereof, the plaint has to be rejected as barred by law. Order 7 Rule 11 (a) CPC, which provides for one of the grounds for rejection of plaint as non-disclosure of cause of action would mean triable cause