- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Saleem Bhai And Others v. State Of Maharashtra And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
These civil appeals stem from a common order dated 7 May 2002 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Indore Bench) in Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 256 and 257 of 2002. The underlying suits were instituted in February 2002 by the respondent-plaintiffs; the present appellant was arrayed as the eighth defendant.
The appellant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) seeking rejection of the plaints on the grounds that (i) no cause of action was disclosed and (ii) the suits were barred by law. Concurrently, the respondents moved an application under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC for judgment on account of the appellant’s failure to file a written statement, while the appellant sought, under Section 151 CPC, a preliminary determination of the Order 7 Rule 11 application.
By order dated 8 December 2001, the trial court: (a) dismissed the respondents’ Order 8 Rule 10 application, (b) dismissed the appellant’s Section 151 application, and (c) directed the appellant to file a written statement before considering the Order 7 Rule 11 plea. The appellant challenged that decision in revision; the High Court affirmed the trial court’s directions and ordered that issues be framed after the written statement was filed. The present appeals question that High Court order.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, an application for rejection of a plaint must be decided solely on the averments contained in the plaint without requiring the defendant to first file a written statement.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The plaints warrant rejection under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC because they disclose no cause of action and are barred by the principles of res judicata and lis pendens.
- Requiring a written statement before adjudicating the Order 7 Rule 11 application amounts to a refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in the trial court.
Respondents' Arguments
- The suit properties (Items 51 and 52 of the relinquishment deed) were not subjects of the earlier litigations; hence neither res judicata nor lis pendens applies.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court reproduced Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and emphasised that, for determining an application under clauses (a) and (d), only the averments in the plaint are germane. A court may invoke this power at any stage of the suit, even before issuance of summons, and consideration of the defendant’s written statement is “wholly irrelevant” at that juncture.
The trial court’s direction compelling the appellant to file a written statement without first ruling on the Order 7 Rule 11 motion constituted a procedural irregularity and a failure to exercise jurisdiction. The High Court, by affirming that course, likewise erred. Consequently, the appellate court held that the impugned order required interference.
Holding and Implications
HELD: The Supreme Court set aside the common order of the High Court and remitted the matters to the trial court to decide the appellant’s Order 7 Rule 11 CPC application based solely on the plaint averments, after hearing the parties. The civil appeals were allowed with no order as to costs.
Implications: The ruling reinforces that a court must adjudicate an Order 7 Rule 11 motion on the face of the plaint, without insisting on a written statement, thereby clarifying the procedural sequence when plaint rejection is sought. No broader substantive precedent was established beyond this procedural clarification.
Order
1. Leave is granted.
2. These appeals arise from the common order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Indore Bench) in Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 256 and 257 of 2002 dated 7-5-2002.
3. These cases have a chequered history but in the view we have taken, we do not consider it necessary to refer to the facts in any detail. Suffice it to say that Respondent 7 in the appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 13234 of 2002 and the sole respondent in the appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 14577 of 2002 filed suits in February 2002, out of which these appeals arise. The eighth defendant in the suits is the appellant in these two appeals. The said respondent-plaintiffs in the suits claimed, inter alia, the following relief:
“(2) That it be declared that the judgment and decree passed by the IIIrd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur in Special Civil Suit No. 147 of 1967, judgment and decree passed by the IVth Additional District Judge, Nagpur in Regular Civil Appeal No. 16 of 1987, and approving the same in the judgment and decree passed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, Bench at Nagpur in Second Appeal No. 132 of 1992, and while maintaining this judgment and decree, judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 25004 of 1996 and in Review Petition No. 1075 of 1997 and order passed in various Revenue Case No. 8 of 1996-97, are illegal, not in existence, null and void and are not within the jurisdiction and therefore are not binding on the plaintiff.”
4. The appellant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”) in the suits praying the court to dismiss the suits on the ground stated therein. Before us, it is stated that the plaint is liable to be rejected under clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 CPC. While so, the said respondents also filed an application under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC to pronounce the judgment in the suits as the appellant did not file his written statement. There was also an application by the appellant under Section 151 CPC praying the court to decide first the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. By an order dated 8-12-2001, the learned trial Judge dismissed the application under Order 8 Rule 10 as well as the application filed under Section 151 CPC. Insofar as the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is concerned, the learned Judge directed the appellant to file his written statement. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed the aforementioned revision petitions before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Indore Bench). On 7-5-2002, the High Court, while confirming the order of the learned trial Judge, reiterated the direction given by the learned trial Judge that the appellant should file his written statement and observed that the trial court shall frame issues of law and facts arising out of pleadings and that the trial court should record its finding on the preliminary issues in accordance with law before proceeding to try the suit on facts. It is against this order of the High Court that the present appeals have been preferred.
5. Mr T.R Andhyarujina, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant in the appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 13234 of 2002 and Mr R.F Nariman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant in the appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 14577 of 2002 have contended that having regard to the very nature of the relief claimed by the plaintiffs, the plaints are liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and that the Court ought to have considered the said application on merits instead of giving direction to file written statement which would amount to not exercising the jurisdiction vested in the Court. It is further contended that the High Court also did not appreciate that the plaints do not show any cause of action and that the plaint ought to have been rejected as the suit is barred by the principles of res judicata and lis pendens.
6. Mr K.K Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, drew our attention to various orders passed in earlier proceedings to show that the subject-matter of the property, Items 51 and 52 of the relinquishment deed were not the suit properties in the earlier judgments, including the order passed by this Court and, therefore, neither the principle of res judicata nor the principle of lis pendens is attracted.
7. The short common question that arises for consideration in these appeals is, whether an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC ought to be decided on the allegations in the plaint and filing of the written statement by the contesting defendant is irrelevant and unnecessary.
8. Order 7 Rule 11 CPC reads as under:
“11. Rejection of plaint.—The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases—
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so;
(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;
(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;
(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9:
Provided that the time fixed by the court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp papers shall not be extended unless the court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp papers, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.”
9. A perusal of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC makes it clear that the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application thereunder are the averments in the plaint. The trial court can exercise the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC at any stage of the suit — before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 CPC, the averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage, therefore, a direction to file the written statement without deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC cannot but be procedural irregularity touching the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court. The order, therefore, suffers from non-exercising of the jurisdiction vested in the court as well as procedural irregularity. The High Court, however, did not advert to these aspects.
10. We are, therefore, of the view that for the aforementioned reasons, the common order under challenge is liable to be set aside and we, accordingly, do so. We remit the cases to the trial court for deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the basis of the averments in the plaint, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the parties in accordance with law.
11. The civil appeals are, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Alert