- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Bhau Ram v. Janak Singh And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
Shanker Lal, originally a tenant, applied for proprietary rights over certain land in District Shimla under the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953. After his death, his widow Reshmoo Devi pursued the proceedings and was granted ownership in 1964. The original owner had in the meantime sold the land to Kamla Devi (Defendant 1), represented by her husband Panu Ram (Defendant 2). Multiple litigations followed:
- Appeals against the Compensation Officer’s order failed, confirming Reshmoo Devi’s rights.
- Civil Suit 61/1 of 1976 for recovery of possession filed by Reshmoo Devi succeeded in 1985, but the first appellate court reversed it as time-barred. The High Court restored her decree in RSA 113/1988; a special-leave petition against that decision was dismissed.
- Attar Singh instituted Suit 424/1 of 99/97 concerning the same land; it was dismissed for default, later restored, and followed by Civil Suit 10/1 of 2004 (possession). The present appellant (Bhau Ram, nephew of Reshmoo Devi and her substituted legal representative) sought rejection of that plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The trial court accepted his application; the District Judge (Forest) reversed that decision and remitted the matter for trial. The High Court, in RSA 501/2009, affirmed the District Judge’s order, prompting the instant appeal to the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court correctly affirmed the first appellate court’s decision to set aside the trial court’s rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and to remit the suit for adjudication on all issues.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Arguments
- The trial court properly rejected the plaint because earlier proceedings (including dismissal for default) barred the fresh suit under Order 9 Rules 8 & 9 and Order 23 Rules 1(3) & 1(4)(b) CPC.
- The lower appellate court and High Court erred in ignoring these statutory bars.
Respondents’ Arguments
- Under settled law, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC must be decided solely on the averments in the plaint; reliance on the defendant’s written statement or other material is impermissible.
- Because the earlier suit had already been restored and related to different property, the statutory bars cited by the appellant had no application.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| C. Natrajan v. Ashim Bai (2007) 14 SCC 183 | Only plaint averments are relevant when deciding an Order 7 Rule 11 CPC application. | Cited to reaffirm that defendant’s pleas cannot be considered at the rejection stage. |
| Ram Prakash Gupta v. Rajiv Kumar Gupta (2007) 10 SCC 59 | Same principle as above. | Relied on for excluding written-statement material from consideration. |
| Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. v. Hede & Co. (2007) 5 SCC 614 | Scope of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC confined to the plaint. | Strengthened the conclusion that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction. |
| Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. v. Vessel M.V. Fortune Express (2006) 3 SCC 100 | Parameters for rejecting a plaint. | Used to illustrate correct interpretive approach. |
| Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Asstt. Charity Commr. (2004) 3 SCC 137 | Relevance of plaint contents alone. | Cited for consistency with earlier jurisprudence. |
| Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra (2003) 1 SCC 557 | Limitations on trial court while considering Order 7 Rule 11. | Reiterated the exclusion of defence materials. |
| Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society v. Ponniamman Educational Trust (2012) 8 SCC 706 | Recent affirmation of the above principles. | Invoked to show the law is “settled,” rendering appellant’s questions moot. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court examined whether the trial court’s reliance on the defendant’s written statement and prior proceedings was permissible under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. It noted:
- The suit that had been dismissed for default (Suit 424/1 of 99/97) was already restored, nullifying the applicability of Order 9 Rules 8 & 9 CPC.
- The reliefs in the restored suit and the present suit concerned different properties; therefore, Order 23 Rules 1(3) & 1(4)(b) CPC were inapplicable.
- Consistent with a line of Supreme Court precedents, only the plaint could be consulted when deciding an Order 7 Rule 11 application. Consideration of allegations drawn from the written statement was legally impermissible.
- Because the trial court violated this principle, the first appellate court rightly set aside its order, and the High Court correctly affirmed that decision.
Holding and Implications
HOLDING: Civil Appeal Dismissed.
Consequently, the High Court’s order—upholding the remand to the trial court for a full trial on all issues—stands. The Supreme Court directed the trial court to conclude the suit within six months. The judgment reinforces the settled rule that, when considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, courts must confine themselves strictly to the averments in the plaint; no new precedent was set beyond affirming this established principle.
P. Sathasivam, J.— Leave granted. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 20-9-2010 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Kular Mani v. Janak Singh RSA No. 501 of 2009 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein.
Brief facts
2. One Shanker Lal owned and possessed several lands in District Shimla including the land in question. Originally the land in question was owned by Smt Lari Mohansingh alias Madna Wati and was in occupation of Shanker Lal as a tenant. After coming into force of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953, Shanker Lal, moved an application on 21-1-1957, for proprietary rights under Section 11 of the said Act before the Compensation Officer, Mahesu. In the meantime, Madna Wati sold the suit land to Panu Ram (Defendant 2) on 22-10-1960. Defendant 2 purchased the said land as benami in the name of his wife Kamla Devi (Defendant 1), who was a minor at that time.
3. After the sale of the suit land, Defendant 1 through Defendant 2 was substituted as the respondents in place of Madna Wati in the application pending before the Compensation Officer. During the pendency of the application, Shanker Lal died on 7-6-1960 and after his death, his wife Reshmoo Devi was substituted as his legal representative. Vide his order dated 31-8-1964, the Compensation Officer allowed the application and granted proprietary rights to Reshmoo Devi. Against the said order, Kamla Devi (Defendant 1) preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Mahesu, who, by his order dated 14-12-1966, dismissed the same.
4. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Compensation Officer, one Raghunath Singh Thakur of Marina Hotel, Shimla filed Civil Suit No. 80/1 of 1962 in the Court of Sub-Judge, Mahesu against Madna Wati and Kamla Devi alleging that the suit land along with other land property was mortgaged with him by Madna Wati and, therefore, she had no rights to sell or transfer the suit land. The said suit was decreed in favour of Raghunath Singh. Aggrieved by the said order, they filed an appeal before the Judicial Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh at Shimla and Reshmoo Devi also preferred an appeal before the Judicial Commissioner, Shimla. Both the appeals were transferred to the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The High Court allowed the appeal preferred by Reshmoo Devi and set aside the order of the Sub-Judge, Mahesu to the extent it affected her rights and further directed her to seek remedy against Kamla Devi by a separate suit.
5. During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, since the possession was forcibly taken from Reshmoo Devi, she filed a suit for recovery of possession being Suit No. 61/1 of 1976 before the Sub-Judge (I), Shimla which was decreed in her favour on 25-3-1985.
6. Aggrieved by that judgment, Kamla Devi filed an appeal before the Sub-Judge, Ist Class, Shimla. During the pendency of the appeal, Reshmoo Devi died on 25-9-1985. An application under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short “CPC”) was filed by the sister of Reshmoo Devi for bringing her on record as legal representative (LR). However, another application was filed by Hira Singh and Attar Singh that they may be brought on record as LRs of Reshmoo Devi on the basis of a will.
7. Challenging the said will, Bhau Ram, the appellant herein, who was the nephew of Reshmoo Devi, filed an application to implead himself as LR of Reshmoo Devi. By order dated 29-11-1986, Sub-Judge, Ist Class, Shimla held that Bhau Ram, the appellant herein, being the son of real brother of Shanker Lal, the husband of Reshmoo Devi is the only legal representative.
8. The appeal filed by Kamla Devi and others was registered as Civil Appeal No. 118-S/13 of 1987. By an order dated 2-12-1987, the Additional District Judge allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit filed by Reshmoo Devi for possession as barred by limitation. The appellant herein, who was substituted as LR, filed the second appeal being RSA No. 113 of 1988 before the High Court which was allowed by the High Court on 25-5-2000 RSA No. 113 of 1988. Against that order, Kamla Devi and others filed a special leave petition before this Court which was dismissed.
9. Involving the same issue, Attar Singh filed a suit being Suit No. 424/1 of 99/97 in the Court of the Sub-Judge IV, Shimla which was dismissed for default on 23-2-2001 but the same was restored vide order dated 14-8-2002. He again filed Civil Suit No. 10/1 of 2004 before the Civil Judge (Jr. Division II) Rohru, Shimla for possession of the suit land belonging to Reshmoo Devi. During the course of proceedings, the appellant herein filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC for rejection of the plaint on certain grounds. By order dated 17-11-2004, the Civil Judge allowed the application and dismissed the suit filed by Attar Singh.
10. Against the said order, Attar Singh filed FA No. 90-S/13 of 2005 before the District Judge (Forest), Shimla. After the death of Attar Singh, Kamla Devi was brought on record as his legal representative. Vide order dated 31-7-2009, the District Judge (Forest) allowed the appeal. Challenging the said order, the appellant herein and his sister, Kular Mani, filed RSA No. 501 of 2009 before the High Court. By the impugned order dated 20-9-2010 RSA No. 501 of 2009, the High Court dismissed the appeal. Against the said order, the appellant herein filed an appeal by way of special leave petition before this Court.
11. Heard Ms Radhika Gautam, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr Sudhir Chandra, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent 1 and Mr T.V Ratnam, learned counsel for Respondent 2.
12. The only point for consideration in this appeal is: whether the High Court is justified in confirming the decision of the lower appellate court and remitting the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration of all the issues?
13. In order to ascertain an answer for the above question, we have to consider whether the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the defendant can be decided merely on the basis of the plaint and whether the other materials filed by the defendant in support of the application can also be looked into. The trial court allowed the application of the appellant-Defendant 1 filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the plaint was barred under the provisions of Order 9 Rules 8 and 9 CPC and Order 23 Rules 1(3) and 1(4)(b) CPC. The said order of the trial court was set aside by the first appellate court on the ground that the trial court had taken the pleas from the written statement of the defendant which is not permissible under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and the High Court in the second appeal confirmed the judgment of the first appellate court.
14. It is relevant to point out the findings of the trial court particularly with reference to Suit No. 424/1 of 99/97 which was dismissed for default had been restored by the trial court even at the time of filing of the application by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and it is also brought to our notice that the said proceedings are going on. In view of the same, the provisions of Order 9 Rules 8 and 9 CPC are not applicable to the said suit. Even otherwise, the reliefs sought in the suit (which was earlier dismissed for default) and in the present suit are with regard to different properties. For the same reasons, the provisions of Order 23 Rules 1(3) and 1(4)(b) CPC are not applicable.
15. The law has been settled by this Court in various decisions that while considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the court has to examine the averments in the plaint and the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be irrelevant [vide C. Natrajan v. Ashim Bai (2007) 14 SCC 183, Ram Prakash Gupta v. Rajiv Kumar Gupta (2007) 10 SCC 59, Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. v. Hede and Co. (2007) 5 SCC 614, Mayar (H.K) Ltd. v. Vessel M.V Fortune Express (2006) 3 SCC 100, Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Asstt. Charity Commr. (2004) 3 SCC 137 and Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra (2003) 1 SCC 557]. The above view has been once again reiterated in the recent decision of this Court in Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society v. Ponniamman Educational Trust (2012) 8 SCC 706.
16. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, the questions of law, as raised in the second appeal, before the High Court are no longer needed to be decided in view of the settled law that only the averments in the plaint can be looked into while deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11. This aspect has been rightly dealt with by the High Court.
17. In the light of the above discussion and in view of the settled legal position, as mentioned above, we are of the view that the High Court is fully justified in confirming the decision of the appellate court remitting the matter to the trial court for consideration of all the issues. In view of the fact that the suit is pending from 2002, we direct the trial court to decide the suit in its entirety considering all the issues, after affording adequate opportunity to both the parties, and dispose of the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment.
18. Consequently, the civil appeal is dismissed with the above direction. No order as to costs.
Alert