Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 3527
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Raj Mohan Singh, J.
Suresh Chand Amar - Appellant
Versus
Subhash Chand Amar And Others - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 7575 of 2015
Decided On : 09-10-2018
A.S. Chadha, Adv., S.K. Biriwal, Adv., C.B. Goel, Adv.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of examining the parties under Order 10 CPC to clear ambiguities before sending the parties to trial, and the need to decide the application under Order 10 CPC prior to the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
Headnote:
Order 7 Rule 11 - Rejection of Plaint - Order 7 Rule 11, Order 10 Rules 1 and 2, Section 151 CPC - The court discussed the application of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the requirement for scrutinizing the averments in the plaint, and the relevance of Order 10 CPC in ascertaining the admission or denial of allegations in the pleadings. The court highlighted the importance of examining the parties under Order 10 CPC to clear ambiguities before sending the parties to trial, and emphasized the need to decide the application under Order 10 CPC prior to the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the dismissal of their application for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial Court should have decided the application under Order 10 CPC prior to the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, and emphasized the need to clear ambiguities before sending the parties to trial.
Issues: The issues revolved around the rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the application of Order 10 CPC, and the requirement to ascertain the admission or denial of allegations in the pleadings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of examining the parties under Order 10 CPC to clear ambiguities before sending the parties to trial, and highlighted the need to decide the application under Order 10 CPC prior to the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
Final Decision: The revision petition was disposed of with the observation that the trial Court should decide the pending application under Order 10 CPC and then allow the parties to avail their legal remedies in accordance with the law.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
-
The primary legal principle established is the importance of examining the parties under Order 10 CPC before sending them to trial to clarify ambiguities and ensure proper adjudication of the case. The court emphasized that issues related to the admission or denial of pleadings should be decided prior to any application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC (!) (!) (!) .
-
The court highlighted that the application for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC should be considered only after the application under Order 10 Rules 1 and 2 CPC has been decided, as this helps in removing ambiguities and clarifying material facts before trial (!) (!) .
-
The case involved a challenge to the order dismissing an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, with the court noting that the trial court should have first decided the application under Order 10 CPC. The court directed that the pending application under Order 10 CPC be decided prior to proceeding with the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC (!) (!) .
-
The court reiterated that the purpose of Order 10 CPC is to ascertain whether allegations in the pleadings are admitted or denied at the initial stage, which is crucial for proper case management and avoiding vexatious or ill-founded suits (!) .
-
The decision emphasized that if the pleadings are found to be cleverly drafted to create an illusion of a cause of action, the court should exercise its power under Order 10 CPC to clarify the issues before considering any rejection of the plaint (!) .
-
The court disposed of the revision petition with the direction that the trial court must decide the pending application under Order 10 CPC first, and only after that should the parties proceed with their respective legal remedies, including any application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC (!) .
-
Overall, the judgment underscores the procedural hierarchy and the importance of clear pleadings and proper examination of parties at the initial stages to ensure justice and efficiency in civil proceedings (!) (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further elaboration or assistance.
JUDGMENT
Raj Mohan Singh, J. - Petitioner has assailed the order dated 11.08.2016 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, whereby application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC for rejection of the plaint was dismissed.
2. At the time of issuance of notice of motion on 27.11.2015, following order was passed:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that parties are closely related being descendants of Sham Lal. Properties were partitioned amongst the stakeholders by virtue of three partition instruments. Firstly it was done by way of registered partition dated 12.11.1959 and lastly by way of arbitral award dated 03.09.1977 which was ultimately made as a Rule of Court as well. After moving application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC by the petitioner, an application for admission and denial of documents was also moved asking the defendants specifically to make statement in the context of certified copies of documents attached with the application. Learned counsel relies upon Vikas Aggarwal Vs. Anubha , (2002) AIR SC 1796 to contend that powers in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC could have been exercised in a given situation.
Notice of motion for 03.02.2016.
Dasti as well.
Trial Court is directed to adjourn the proceedings beyond the date fixed by this Court."
3. Perusal of the record would show that an application under Order 10 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC was filed by the petitioner on 18.07.2014 (Annexure P-12) with this petition. Para No.2 of the application reads as under:-
"2. That on the Court file, certified copies of certain judgments and decrees and other proceedings have been filed which documents are unimpeachable in nature. It is submitted that the plaintiff himself was a party in respect of partition of properties which had taken place by appointing Sh. Om Parkash Singla, Uncle (Phupha) of the parties way back on 14.09.1977 in which the claim for arbitration proceedings was admitted by the present plaintiff and further the parties partitioned the properties by accepting the award of the Arbitrator and the said award was made a Rule of the Court on 04.11.1977. By virtue of the said award, the property situated at Link Road, Old Faridabad came to the exclusive share of Smt. Gindori Devi. It is further submitted that there was a civil suit titled as Suresh Chand Amar and Others Vs. Sh. Harish Chand and Others in which the present plaintiff was also a party and it was a suit for partition filed on 06.12.1972 and ultimately a compromise was arrived at between the parties on 19.07.1974 in which the present plaintiff was also a party and signatory. The said suit ultimately culminated into a decree dated 19.07.1974. Certified copies of all these documents and other documents which are Court proceedings are unimpeachable and are on the Court file."
4. While passing the impugned order, contention of the petitioner along with other applicants/defendants was noticed in para No.4 of the impugned order and ultimately, the Court decided that firstly, parties shall be called to admit the documents in terms of Vikas Aggarwal's case i.e. for getting the pleadings clear after removal of ambiguity before the parties are sent to trial. Before framing of issues, material facts and particulars are to be brought on record. In view of above, the trial Court preferred to decide the application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC prior to decision of the application under Order 10 CPC.
5. Order 7 Rule 1 CPC (J) (inserted vide amendment of Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh dated 15.03.1991), prescribes that the plaint shall contain a statement to the effect that no suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating on the same grounds has been previously instituted or finally decided by a Court of competent jurisdiction or limited jurisdiction, and if so, with what results.
6. In terms of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the Court has to scrut
