Back
2015 Supreme(UK) 419
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Alok Singh, J.
Ambrish Kumar Agarwal - Petitioner
Versus
Thakur Dass - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 2226 (MS) of 2015
Decided On : 08-09-2015
For the Petitioner:B.K. Gupta, Advocate
Failure to file the duplicate copy of the plaint is curable and does not warrant rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC.
Headnote:
Amendment - Rejection of Plaint - Order IV Rule 1, Order 6 Rule 18, Order 7 Rule 11 - The court discussed the provisions of Order IV Rule 1, Order 6 Rule 18, and Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. It highlighted the requirement of filing the plaint in duplicate, the time limit for carrying out amendments, and the grounds for rejection of the plaint. The court emphasized that failure to file the duplicate copy of the plaint is curable and does not warrant rejection under Order 7 Rule 11.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord filed a suit against the tenant for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction. The tenant sought rejection of the plaint due to the landlord's failure to carry out an amendment in the duplicate copy of the plaint.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the failure to file the duplicate copy of the plaint was curable and did not warrant rejection under Order 7 Rule 11. It directed the trial court to grant reasonable time to the plaintiff to carry out the amendment.
Issues: The main issue was whether the plaint should be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 (e) CPC due to the plaintiff's failure to carry out the amendment in the duplicate copy of the plaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the failure to file the duplicate copy of the plaint is curable and does not warrant rejection under Order 7 Rule 11. It emphasized that the defect can be cured within the time fixed by the court under Rule 18 Order 6.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to grant reasonable time to the plaintiff to carry out the amendment in the duplicate copy of the plaint.
Alok Singh, J.
Present petition is filed by the defendant/ tenant/petitioner, herein, assailing the judgment and order dated 13.07.2015 passed by JSCC/Civil Judge (SD), Haldwani (Nainital) in JSCC Suit No. 04 of 2008 whereby application (Paper No. 137C) moved by the defendant/tenant/petitioner, herein, for rejecting the plaint, was rejected as well as judgment and order dated 31.08.2015 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Haldwani whereby JSCC Revision No. 53 of 2015 was dismissed upholding judgment and order dated 13.07.2015 passed by learned trial court.
2. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that landlord/plaintiff/respondent, herein, has filed JSCC Suit No. 04 of 2008 against the defendant/ tenant/petitioner, herein, in the court of JSCC/Civil Judge (SD), Haldwani (Nainital) for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction of the tenant on the ground of non payment of rent for more than four months i.e. with effect from 01.04.2007 to 23.05.2008, despite demand of arrears of rent vide statutory notice. Defendant/ tenant/petitioner, herein, having received summon, has filed written statement before the trial court.
3. Landlord/plaintiff/respondent, herein, has moved an application seeking amendment in paragraph 7 of the plaint saying that in paragraph 2 and 3 of the plaint, it has specifically been stated that rent is due with effect from 01.04.2007 till 31.03.2008, however, in paragraph 7 of the plaint, due to typographical mistake instead of "01.04.2007", "01.04.2008" was typed, therefore, same should be allowed to be corrected. Learned trial court vide order dated 27.02.2012 was pleased to permit the landlord/plaintiff/respondent, herein, to carry out the amendment in paragraph 7 of the plaint. Landlord/plaintiff/respondent, herein, has carried out the amendment in the original plaint on 29.02.2012, however, amendment could not be carried out in the duplicate copy of the plaint, which was filed along with original copy of plaint, as required under Order IV Rule 1 CPC.
4. Defendant/ tenant/petitioner, herein, thereafter, moved an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC (paper no. 137C) requesting the trial court to reject the plaint on the ground that landlord/plaintiff/respondent, herein, has failed to carry out the amendment in duplicate copy of the plaint filed along with original copy of plaint. Application so moved by the defendant/ tenant/petitioner, herein, was rejected by the trial court and revision arising therefrom was also dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
5. Mr. B.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently argued that since as per Order IV Rule 1 CPC, every plaint is to be filed in duplicate, therefore, in every suit, amendment has to be carried out, in case, amendment is allowed by the court, in the original copy of the plaint as well as in the duplicate copy of the plaint.
6. According to Mr. B.K. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner, if amendment is not carried out in the duplicate copy of the plaint filed along with original copy of the plaint, as required under Order IV Rule 1 CPC, then as per clause (e) of Rule 11 Order 7 CPC, plaint should be rejected.
7. According to Mr. Gupta, in the present case, both the courts below have committed jurisdictional error by not rejecting the plaint, as required under Order 7, Rule 11 (e) CPC.
8. Order IV Rule 1, Order 6, Rule 18 and Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC read as under:
"Order IV Rule 1. Suit to be commenced by plaint (1) Every suit shall be instituted by presenting a plaint (in duplicate) to the Court or such officer as it appoints in this behalf.
(2) Every plaint shall comply with the rules contained in Orders VI and VII, so far as they are applicable.
(3) The plaint shall not be deemed to be duly instituted unless it complies with the requirements specified in sub-rules (1) and (2)."
"Order 6, Rule 18 . Failure to amend after order If a party who has o
