- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
R.K. Roja v. U.S. Rayudu And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The first respondent filed an election petition dated 30-6-2014 challenging the appellant’s election to the 289 Nagiri Assembly Constituency, for which she had been declared elected on 16-5-2014. Within thirty days of receiving summons, the appellant submitted an affidavit (Annexure P-4) invoking Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) to seek outright rejection of the election petition. The trial court declined to consider this affidavit because it was not accompanied by a formal application. Consequently, the appellant lodged a formal application (Annexure P-5) on 22-2-2016. The High Court, finding that the application was not made “at the earliest opportunity” and alleging a lack of diligence, ordered that it be taken up only at the final hearing and refused the appellant leave to file a written statement. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court raising grievance over (i) nondisposal of the Order 7 Rule 11 application at the threshold and (ii) denial of the opportunity to file a written statement.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a court can defer determination of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC until the final hearing of the main petition.
- Whether the appellant, after filing an Order 7 Rule 11 application, is entitled to file a written statement once that application is adjudicated.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Charity Commissioner, (2004) 3 SCC 137 | An application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC may be filed at any stage, and the court must consider only the plaint to see if it should be rejected. | Relied on to hold that the High Court was obliged to decide the Order 7 Rule 11 application before proceeding to trial. |
| Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 1 SCC 557 | Directing a defendant to file a written statement without first deciding an Order 7 Rule 11 application is a procedural irregularity. | Cited to reinforce the requirement that the trial court dispose of the application prior to insisting on a written statement. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court emphasized that Order 7 Rule 11 CPC furnishes a mandatory, threshold remedy: once such an application is filed, the court must decide it before embarking on trial. The High Court’s postponement of the application contravened this settled position and amounted to a jurisdictional error.
Addressing concerns that defendants might exploit Rule 11 applications merely to delay proceedings, the Court observed that the remedy cannot be used as a subterfuge to reclaim a lost chance to file a written statement. Nevertheless, in this case the appellant had invoked Rule 11 within the statutory period, and the delay stemmed from the trial court’s insistence on a formal application.
Having heard counsel on the merits of the Rule 11 application, the Supreme Court concluded that the election petition did not fall within any of the grounds enumerated in Order 7 Rule 11(a)–(f) CPC. Consequently, the application for rejection was dismissed. However, because the High Court’s procedure deprived the appellant of an opportunity to file a written statement, the Court granted her two weeks to do so.
Holding and Implications
Impugned order set aside; Order 7 Rule 11 application dismissed on merits; appellant permitted to file written statement within two weeks; appeal disposed of.
Direct Effect: The election petition will proceed before the High Court, which is requested to conclude the matter by the end of the year. Broader Implication: The judgment reaffirms that courts must adjudicate Order 7 Rule 11 CPC applications promptly, preventing unnecessary trials while discouraging tactical delays.
Kurian Joseph, J.— Leave granted. The appellant has two grievances—(i) The Court has not disposed of an application filed by her under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) for rejection of the election petition and the same has been posted along with the main petition, and (ii) She is denied an opportunity to file written statement.
2. The first respondent herein filed an election petition challenging the election of the appellant to the 289 Nagiri Assembly Constituency. The appellant was declared elected on 16-5-2014. The election petition is dated 30-6-2014. On receipt of notice in the election petition, the appellant filed Annexure P-4, application for rejection of the petition, under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC by way of a counter-affidavit. It appears that the Court declined to consider the same on the ground that there was no formal application and hence proceeded with the trial. At that stage, the appellant filed Annexure P-5, formal application for rejection of the election petition on the ground that the election petition did not disclose any cause of action. That application as per the impugned order dated 27-4-2016 was posted along with the main petition, and thus, the appeal.
3. The High Court has taken the view that the same “was not filed at the earliest opportunity” and that the appellant was not diligent in prosecuting the application. Therefore, the Court took the view that “… this application filed by the first respondent shall be decided at the time of final hearing …”.
4. We are afraid that the stand taken by the High Court in the impugned order cannot be appreciated. An application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be filed at any stage, as held by this Court in Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Charity Commr. (2004) 3 SCC 137:
“10. … The trial court can exercise the power 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.”
The only restriction is that the consideration of the application for rejection should not be on the basis of the allegations made by the defendant in his written statement or on the basis of the allegations in the application for rejection of the plaint. The court has to consider only the plaint as a whole, and in case, the entire plaint comes under the situations covered by Order 7 Rules 11(a) to (f) CPC, the same has to be rejected.
5. Once an application is filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the court has to dispose of the same before proceeding with the trial. There is no point or sense in proceeding with the trial of the case, in case the plaint (election petition in the present case) is only to be rejected at the threshold. Therefore, the defendant is entitled to file the application for rejection before filing his written statement. In case the application is rejected, the defendant is entitled to file his written statement thereafter (see Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra (2003) 1 SCC 557). But once an application for rejection is filed, the court has to dispose of the same before proceeding with the trial court. To quote the relevant portion from para 20 of Sopan Sukhdeo Sable case (2004) 3 SCC 137:
“20. … Rule 11 of Order 7 lays down an independent remedy made available to the defendant to challenge the maintainability of the suit itself, irrespective of his right to contest the same on merits. The law ostensibly does not contemplate at any stage when the objections can be raised, and also does not say in express terms about the filing of a written statement. Instead, the word “shall” is used, clearly implying thereby that it casts a duty on the court to perform its obligations in rejecting the plaint when the same is hit by any of the infirmities provided in the four clauses of Rule 11, even without intervention of the defendant.”
6. In Saleem Bhai case (2003) 1 SCC 557, this Court has also held that:
“9. … a direction to file the written statement without deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 cannot but be a procedural irregularity touching the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court.”
However, we may hasten to add that the liberty to file an application for rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC cannot be made as a ruse for retrieving the lost opportunity to file the written statement.
7. Apparently, in the present case, it is seen that Annexure P-4, affidavit dated 15-3-2015, with a prayer … “to dismiss the present election petition under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC…”, was filed within thirty days of the receipt of the summons in the election petition. However, the court was not inclined to consider the same in the absence of a formal application, and thus, Annexure P-5, Application No. EA No. 222 of 2016 was filed on 22-2-2016 leading to the impugned order, posting the application for consideration at the time of final hearing.
8. The procedure adopted by the court is not warranted under law. Without disposing of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the court cannot proceed with the trial. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is only to be set aside. Ordered accordingly.
9. However, the concern expressed by the High Court with regard to the alleged attempt on the part of the appellant for delaying the trial of the election petition cannot be brushed aside. Therefore, we have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant on the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. We are satisfied that the said application does not come within the purview of any of the situations under Order 7 Rules 11(a) to (f) CPC. Therefore, the application is rejected. In the peculiar facts of this case which we have narrated above, the appellant is given an opportunity to file written statement in the election petition within two weeks from today.
10. Since the election petition has been pending before the High Court since 2014, we request the High Court to dispose of the same before the end of this year.
11. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Alert