Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, J.
Smt. Shanti Subba, Wife of Shri Dil Kumar Subba & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Shri Jashang Subba Son of Shri Bahadur Limboo - Respondent
CRP No. 01 of 2019
Decided On : 26-06-2020
Revision Petition - Challenge to order rejecting applications under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Section 115, Section 151, Order VII Rule 11 - The court discussed the grounds for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the interpretation of 'law' in the context of the rule, and the requirement to consider the averments in the plaint and documents relied upon. The court also highlighted the need for a trial to decide factual questions and the stringent conditions for exercising power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, recovery of possession, and other reliefs related to ancestral property. The defendants filed applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint, which were rejected by the trial court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and was not barred by law at the threshold, emphasizing the need for a trial to adjudicate the claims. The court also discussed the interpretation of 'law' in the context of Order VII Rule 11 CPC and the requirement to consider the averments in the plaint and documents relied upon.
Issues: The issues involved the grounds for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the interpretation of 'law' in the context of the rule, and the requirement to consider the averments in the plaint and documents relied upon.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is a drastic power and should only occur if the averments in the plaint do not disclose a cause of action or if the suit appears to be barred under any law. The court highlighted the need for a trial to adjudicate claims and the stringent conditions for exercising power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Final Decision: The revision petition challenging the rejection of the applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was dismissed by the court.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is a drastic measure that should only be exercised if the plaint does not disclose a cause of action or if the suit is clearly barred by law. The court emphasized that such rejection should not be based on the merits of the case but solely on these limited grounds (!) .
The court clarified that the averments in the plaint must be read as a whole to determine whether they disclose a cause of action or whether the suit is barred under any law. The factual matrix and the documents relied upon in the plaint are to be considered, but the defendant's stand or objections at this stage are immaterial (!) .
The fundamental issue in the case involves allegations of forgery and fabrication related to a Gift Deed and a No Objection Certificate, as well as questions regarding the legality of an allotment under a government scheme. The court noted that these issues are matters for trial and cannot be decided at the stage of considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC (!) .
The court reaffirmed that the power to reject a plaint is only to be exercised when the plaint clearly does not disclose a cause of action or is barred by law. Since the plaint in this case was found to disclose a cause of action and was not barred, the applications for rejection were rightly rejected (!) .
The court highlighted that the question of whether a gift of ancestral property is reasonable or valid is a factual matter that must be determined during the trial, and not at this preliminary stage (!) .
The court also discussed the scope of what constitutes "law" in the context of the bar under Order VII Rule 11(d), clarifying that it includes law declared by the highest courts, including the Supreme Court, and not only statutory law (!) .
Ultimately, the court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the trial court's decision that the plaint did disclose a cause of action and was not barred by law, and therefore, the applications for rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC were rightly rejected (!) .
These points collectively emphasize that the rejection of a plaint is a measure of last resort, reserved for clear cases where the plaint fails to disclose a cause of action or is barred by law, and that factual and legal determinations are to be made during the trial process.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. Zangpo Sherpa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. N. Rai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. This Revision Petition under Section 115 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “CPC”) is filed challenging the impugned order dated 11.03.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, East Sikkim at Gangtok rejecting three applications – one by petitioner no. 1 (defendant no.1), another by petitioner no. 2 (defendant no.2) and the third one, which is a joint application by petitioner nos. 3, 4 and 5 (defendant nos.3, 4 and5), filed under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC.
3. At the very outset, it will be appropriate to note that Mr. Sherpa has relied on the application of petitioner no. 2, who is the father of petitioner nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and the respondent.
4. The respondent (plaintiff) herein had filed the suit for declaration, recovery of possession, injunction and other consequential reliefs. The case of the plaintiff, as stated in the plaint, in short, is that according to the Survey Operation of 1979-80, plot nos. 212, 213, 216, 217, 218, 219 and 220 measuring 2.8666 Hectors at Tumlabong Block, Rumtek Circle at East Sikkim was recorded in the name of late Yakha Limboo, who is the grandfather of the plaintiff, being the father of defendant no.2. The aforesaid plots of land were mutated in the name of defendant no.2. The plaintiff came to learn that defendant no. 1, in connivance with defendant nos.2 to 5 had illegally obtained Parcha Khatian No. 105, bearing plot no. 216/474 measuring 0.0149 Hectors, which is the suit property, on the basis of Gift Deed dated 17.11.2017 and 27.11.2017. It is pleaded that the signature of the plaintiff in No Objection Certificate (NOC) dated 26.12.2017, which also contained the signatures of defendant nos.3 to 5, was forged by defendant no.1 and though in that connection the plaintiff had lodged a First Information Report (FIR) before the Station House Officer, Ranipool Police Station, the same having not been registered, a private complaint was filed which was registered as Private Complaint Case No. 11/2018 in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, East Sikkim at Gangtok. Subsequently, in view of order dated 22.05.2018 passed by the learned Magistrate, Ranipool Police Station Case No. 21/18 was registered under Sections 420, 468, 471/34 IPC against defendant no.1 and her husband. On an application for mutation of the suit property being filed by defendant no.1 and a notice having been issued to the plaintiff, the plaintiff had lodged objection, whereupon the Sub-Divisional Magistrate by an order dated 05.05.2018 directed the parties to approach the Civil Court for redressal. It is also pleaded that defendant no.1 and her husband, being Government employees, though not entitled to any benefit under Chief Minister’s Rural Housing Mission Scheme, which is meant for people who are homeless and who are below the poverty line, had obtained benefit.
5. The prayers made by the plaintiff read as follows:
b. A decree for recovery of possession of the suit land.
b. A decree for cancellation of the allotment of the house under the Chief Minister’s Rural Housing Mission (CMRHM) Scheme in the name of the defendant No.1.
c. Decree for De-registration of the Gift deed dated 17.12.2017 and 27.12.2017 from the name of Shanti Subba, Defendant No.1 and restore the same in the name of Defendant No.2.
d. Decree for Demolition of the under construction house being illegally constructed upon the suit land.
e. A decree declaring that the suit property is an unpartitioned ancestral property of the legal heirs of late Yakha Limboo.
f. An order for ad-interim and temporary injunction in favour of the Plaintiff restraining the Defendants, their men, their agents and assigns from disturbing and interfering in peaceful passi
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
