Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.VII, r.11 – Rejection of Plaint – A partnership firm was constituted under deed of partnership dated 06.12.1943 – None of the original partners are alive – Plaintiffs and defendants are legal heirs of the original partners – A suit was filed by the plaintiffs claiming that inspite of demise of the three original partners of the partnership firm, the defendants were carrying on the business of the partnership firm – It was also claimed that defendants were representing the partnership firm excluding the plaintiffs – Therefore plaintiffs, inter alia, sought decree of declaration that they along with defendants were entitled to assets, properties of the firm and also sought dissolution of the firm – Defendants filed applications including an application for rejection of plaint – The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the applications – However, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the application for rejection of plaint – It was held that the plaintiffs as legal heirs of some of the original partners cannot maintain any claim in respect of the assets and properties of the said firm – Their prayer for declaration of co-ownership of the assets and properties of the said firm is not maintainable in law – Further, it is settled law that only the partners of a firm can seek dissolution of the firm – Admittedly, the plaintiffs are not partners of the said firm – On appeal, held: The power conferred on the court to terminate a civil action is a drastic one, and the conditions enumerated u/Or.VII R.11 of CPC are required to be strictly adhered to – However, u/Or.VII R.11 of CPC, the duty is cast upon the Court to determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action, by scrutinizing the averments in the plaint, read in conjunction with the documents relied upon, or whether the suit is barred by any law – The underlying object of Or.VII R.11 of CPC is that when a plaint does not disclose a cause of action, the court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings – In the instant case, the findings of the Division Bench of the High Court are correct – Considering the provisions of the Partnership Act and the clauses of the partnership deed, the relief sought in the plaint cannot be granted.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The court has to find out as to whether in the background of the facts, the relief, as claimed in the plaint, can be granted to the plaintiff. It has been held that if the court finds that none of the reliefs sought in the plaint can be granted to the plaintiff under the law, the question then arises is as to whether such a suit is to be allowed to continue and go for trial. [Para 17][618-D-E]
2. Therefore, the question that will have to be considered is as to whether the reliefs as claimed in the plaint by the plaintiffs could be granted or not. This Court does not propose to do that exercise, inasmuch as the Division Bench of the High Court has elaborately considered the issue as to whether, applying the provisions of the said Act read with the aforesaid clauses in the Partnership Deed, the reliefs, as claimed in the plaint, could be granted or not. This Court is in complete agreement with the findings of the High Court. [Paras 18 and 19][618-G-H; 621-A]
3. This Court in Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead Through Legal Representatives and Others has held that the power conferred on the court to terminate a civil action is a drastic one, and the conditions enumerated under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC are required to be strictly adhered to. However, under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the duty is cast upon the court to determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action, by scrutinizing the averments in the plaint, read in conjunction with the documents relied upon, or whether the suit is barred by any law. This Court has held that the underlying object of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is that when a plaint does not disclose a cause of action, the court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings. It has been held that in such a case, it will be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation so that further judicial time is not wasted. This Court is in agreement with the Division Bench of the High Court which, upon an elaborate scrutiny of the averments made in the plaint, the reliefs claimed therein, the provisions of the said Act and the clauses of the Partnership Deed, came to the conclusion that the reliefs as sought in the plaint, cannot be granted. [Paras 20 and 21] [622-A-D]
Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead Through Legal Representatives and Others (2020)
7 SCC 366; T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal and Another (1977) 4 SCC 467: [1978] 1 SCR 742; Pearlite Liners (P) Ltd. v. Manorama Sirsi (2004) 3 SCC 172: [2004] 1 SCR 266 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.