Back
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, M. G. PRIYADARSINI
Vidya Vikas Samithi Trust – Appellant
Versus
Shashiprabha Manik Rao – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J.
1. The Appeal Suit arises out of the order and decree dated 06.01.2024 rejecting the appellants’ plaint in O.S. No. 80 of 2021 on an Application made by the defendants (respondents herein) under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.).
2. The appellants (plaintiffs) had approached this Court in an earlier Appeal Suit in 2023 (A.S. No. 327 of 2023) challenging the order dated 05.06.2023 passed by the Trial Court rejecting the plaint on the respondents’ Application under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C. A Co-ordinate Bench disposed of the said Appeal by the judgment dated 09.10.2023 by setting aside the order dated 05.06.2023, impugned in that Appeal, and remanding the matter to the Trial Court for re-examining the Application filed by the respondents/ defendants under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C. and pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
3. The present Appeal is therefore from a second-look at the respondents’ Application for rejection of the appellants’ plaint on the ground of the plaint not disclosing a cause of action and being barred by law: Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the C.P.C. respectively.
4. Lear
The rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 must be supported by clear reasoning, and failure to provide such reasoning renders the order unsustainable.
A plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 for failure to disclose a cause of action if new instances of trespass are claimed, necessitating a trial on the merits.
A plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC based on alleged contradictions in the claims; it must be assessed as a whole to determine if it discloses a cause of action.
It is perspicuous and indubitable, even from a plain reading of afore provision that, what is provided for is rejection of plaint if any of causes.
The court held that a plaint can only be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 if it does not disclose a cause of action, and the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact.
A plaint must establish a clear cause of action; limitation issues involving mixed questions of fact and law cannot be decided without trial evidence.
The court established that a plaint can be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 if it is barred by limitation, regardless of the merits of the case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering documents filed along with the plaint for deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The judgment emphasized....
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
