SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmohan Singh, J
Sardar Rawel Singh – Appellant
Versus
Sardar Harjit Singh – Respondent
IA No.7179/2007 in CS (OS) No.1246/2006



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kirti Uppal, Vaibhav Sharma
For the Respondents: J.P. Gupta, Girish Aggarwal

A plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC based on disputed facts or conflicting statements made by the plaintiff, as such issues must be determined during trial; rejection is only permissible if the plaint, on its face, discloses no cause of action.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order 7 Rule 11 - Cause of Action - The court must be hesitant to exercise jurisdiction under Order 7 Rule 11 unless the matter falls strictly within the requirements; the plaint can be rejected only if, assuming all allegations are true, the plaintiff is entitled to no relief. (Para 2, 3)

(B) Trial Process - Conflicting Statements - Disputed questions or contradictory statements made by the plaintiff in different proceedings are matters of evidence to be determined during trial and cannot be the basis for rejecting a plaint at the preliminary stage. (Para 2, 5)

Issues: Whether the plaint should be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC based on alleged conflicting statements made by the plaintiffs.

Table of Content
1. application for rejection of plaint based on alleged conflicting statements regarding payment and possession. (Para 1)
2. standard for order 7 rule 11: plaint rejected only if no relief is possible even if all allegations are proved. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
3. incorrect statements in pleadings must be examined during trial, not at the stage of rejection of plaint. (Para 5)

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No

2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No

MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. In this suit, the defendant No.1 Sardar Harjit Singh has filed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC for rejection of the plaint. It is stated in the application that the plaintiff admittedly by virtue of sale deed executed on 25th May 2005 has received consideration amount of Rs.25 lakhs from Jaspal Kaur. It is mentioned in the application that in the plaint, the plaintiff has stated that Smt.Jaspal Kaur has withheld some payment as the possession of the said property is in occupation of M/s. Oriental Wollen Mills although the possession has already been handed over to her.

2. In view of the statement made in the plaint as referred in Para 6, the defendant No.1 prays that the plaint be rejected for lack of cause of action in view of conflicting statements made by the plaintiffs in the other proceedings of pending litigation between the parties. In view of my finding given in the order passed in Suit No.690/05 separately, the present application is not maintainable. In case the plaintiff has made any contrary statement in two proceedings that will have to be decided at the time of trial. It is well settled law that the approach of the court while dealing with the application under Order 7Rule 11 is that the court should be rather hesitant to exercise the jurisdiction under Order 7 Rule 11 unless the circumstances warrants such exercise and the matter in issue falls within the four corners of requirement of suit.

3. It is also well settled law that the disputed question cannot be decided at the time of considering the application under Order 7 Rule 11. The power to reject the plaint can be exercised only if the court comes to the conclusion that even if all the allegations are taken to be proved, the plaintiff would not be entitled to any relief whatsoever.

4. A distinction must always be drawn in a case where the plaint on the face of it disclose no cause of action and in another where after considering the entire material on record, the court comes to the conclusion that there is no cause of action. In the first case, the plaint can be rejected but in the later case the plaint cannot be rejected.

5. In the case at hand, if the plaintiff has made an incorrect statement in the pleading, it is to be examined during the course of the trial and will be determined in accordance with law. Therefore, the present application is not maintainable and the same is dismissed. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top