Madhav Prasad Aggarwal & Anr. vs Axis Bank Ltd. & Anr.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

1 July 2019

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 5126 of 2019

Result

Allowed

Bench

A.M. Khanwilkar, Ajay Rastogi

Citation

[2019] 8 S.C.R. 1058 : 2019 INSC 707

Headnote

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:

Order 7 Rule 11(d) – Rejection of plaint – Relief of rejection of plaint, sought by one of the defendants – Permissibility – Held: In exercise of powers u/Or. 7 r. 11(d) the plaint has to be rejected as a whole or not at all – Such relief cannot be pursued only in respect of one of the defendants – In the present case rejection of plaint only qua respondent No. 1 by the High Court in exercise of powers u/Or. 7 r. 11(d) was replete with jurisdictional error. Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD : 1. The plaint can and must be rejected in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC on account of noncompliance of mandatory requirements or being replete with any institutional deficiency at the time of presentation of the plaint, ascribable to clauses (a) to (f) of Rule 11 of Order 7 of CPC. The plaint as presented must proceed as a whole or can be rejected as a whole but not in part. In that sense, the relief claimed by respondent No.1 in the notice of motion(s) which commended to the High Court, is clearly a jurisdictional error. The fact that one or some of the reliefs claimed against respondent No.1 in the concerned suit is barred by Section 34 of 2002 Act or otherwise, such objection can be raised by invoking other remedies including under Order 6 Rule 16 of CPC at the appropriate stage. That can be considered by the Court on its own merits and in accordance with law. Although, the High Court has examined those matters in the impugned judgment the same should stand effaced. [Para 13] [1069-B-E]

2. A fortiori, the appeals must succeed on the sole ground that the principal relief claimed in the notice of motion filed by respondent No.1 to reject the plaint only qua the said respondent and which commended to the High Court, is replete with jurisdictional error. Such a relief “cannot be entertained” in exercise of power under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC. That power is limited to rejection of the plaint as a whole or not at all. [Para 15] [1069-G-H; 1070-A]

Sejal Glass Limited v. Navilan Merchants Private Limited (2018) 11 SCC 780 : [2017] 7 SCR 557 – relied on. Mardia Chemicals Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (2004) 4 SCC 311 : [2004] 3 SCR 982 ; Jagdish Singh v. Heeralal and Ors. (2014) 1 SCC 479 : [2013]

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A. M. KHANWILKAR, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. These appeals take exception to the common judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction) in Appeal Nos.360, 361, 362 and Commercial Appeal No.172 of 2017 dated 26th October, 2018, whereby the notice of motion(s) filed by respondent No.1-Axis Bank Ltd. (one of the defendant in the suits filed by the respective appellant(s)) came to be allowed and as a result of which, the suit filed by the concerned appellant(s) had been dismissed as against respond

View Subscription Plans →