Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 24537
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J
Harnam Singh – Appellant
Versus
C.G. State Power Generation Company Ltd. – Respondent
First Appeal No. 158 of 2008
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Prafull Bharat, Akash Pandey
For the Respondents: Varun Sharma, Krishna Tandan
An application for rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC cannot be entertained at an advanced stage of trial (after filing of written statement and recording of evidence), as the provision's objective is to terminate defective litigation at the outset.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code - Order 7 Rule 11 - Stage of Application - Rejection of a plaint cannot be entertained at an advanced stage of trial where the written statement has been filed, issues have been framed, and evidence has been recorded, as the objective of the provision is to nip defective litigation in the bud. (Para 10, 11, 12)
(B) Jurisdiction - Arbitration Bar - When a trial has substantially progressed to the stage of final arguments, the court should adjudicate the controversy on merits rather than rejecting the plaint on jurisdictional grounds under Order 7 Rule 11. (Para 12)
Issues: Whether the trial Court is justified in invoking Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC and rejecting the plaint at the stage of final argument after the written statement had been filed, issues had been framed and plaintiff’s evidence had been recorded.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history of the suit, including the initial dismissal, remand by the high court, and subsequent rejection of the plaint by the trial court. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 7) |
| 2. arguments regarding whether a plaint can be rejected under order 7 rule 11 after the trial has progressed to the evidence stage. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. the legal principle that order 7 rule 11 is intended to terminate defective litigation at the outset and cannot be used at the final argument stage. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. application of the principle to the current case, setting aside the trial court's order, and remanding the matter for decision on merits. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
Judgment on Board
1. The appellant/plaintiff has preferred this first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter, referred as “CPC”) calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of impugned judgment and decree dated 24/06/2008 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 24-B/07 whereby the plaint filed by the appellant/plaintiff has been rejected invoking Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC on the ground that the suit, as framed and filed by the appellant/plaintiff, is barred by Section 20 of Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (hereinafter, referred as “the Act of 1983”).
(For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status and ranking given in the plaint before the trial Court.)
2. The aforesaid challenge to the impugned judgment and decree has been made on the following factual backdrop :-
(i) Plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,14,555.59/- against the defendant i.e. the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board on 30/10/1986. Thereafter, defendant entered into appearance on 16/11/1992 and filed its written statement and then on 19/09/1996, trial Court framed as many as 10 issues. On 20/10/1997, evidence of two of the plaintiffs’ witnesses namely Iqbal Singh (PW-1) and Jaspal Singh (PW-2) were recorded. Subsequently, on 06/11/1997, defendant proceeded ex-parte. Thereafter, the trial Court, vide its judgment and decree dated 10/12/1997 ultimately, dismissed the suit, without recording findings on the individual issues, as defendant had already proceeded ex-parte, principally on the ground of non-compliance of Order 10 and Order 11 of the CPC.
(ii) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and decree dated 10/12/1997 passed by the trial Court, plaintiff preferred a first appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which was transferred to the High Court of Chhattisgarh and registered as FA/144/1998 wherein this Court, vide judgment dated 16/07/2007, allowed the first appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, particularly keeping in view the mandatory provisions contained in Order 14 Rule 2 of the CPC.
(iii) Upon remand of the matter, the trial Court adjudicated upon issues No. 5(a) and (b) relating to jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain the suit, along with I.A. No. 1, application filed by the defendant seeking rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC and vide impugned judgment and decree dated 24/06/2008, rejected the plaint of the plaintiff invoking Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC holding that the work undertaken by the plaintiff fell within the definition of “Works Contract” as specified under Section 2(1) of the Act of 1983 and therefore, the Civil Court does not have the power and jurisdiction to hear the suit as per Section 20 of the Act of 1983, proceeded to dismiss the suit holding it to be non-maintainable, which has been challenged by the plaintiff in the present appeal.
3. It is pertinent to mention here that I.A. No. 1, application filed by the defendant for rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, was taken up for consideration by the trial Court at an earlier stage of the proceedings
