Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: s.96; Or.7 r.11 – Rejection of plaint – Writ petition by plaintiff challenging the order of trial court allowing the application filed under Or.7 r.11 – Maintainability of – Held: The definition of “decree” in s.2(2) “shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint” – Hence, the order of trial court rejecting the plaint is subject to a first appeal under s.96 of the CPC – Writ petition by plaintiff liable to be rejected on that ground – Writ jurisdiction.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Or.7 r.11 – Trial court allowed the application filed under Or.7 r.11 – However, while doing so, plaintiff was directed to seek proper relief and pay court fee thereon within 15 days otherwise appropriate order would be passed – Defendants challenged the order of trial court in so far as it permitted the plaintiff to carry out an amendment of seeking appropriate relief – High Court allowed the revision petition filed by defendants on the ground that since the plaint was rejected under Or.7 r.11, there was no occasion to direct that an amendment be made to the plaint – Held: The proviso to Or.7 r.11 deals with a situation where time has been fixed by the Court for correction of valuation or for supplying of the requisite stamp paper – Under the proviso, the time so fixed shall not be extended unless the court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by a cause of an exceptional nature from complying within the time fixed by the court and that a refusal to extend time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff – The proviso evidently covers the cases falling within the ambit of clauses (b) and (c) and has no application to a rejection of a plaint under Or.7 r.11(d) – In the circumstances, the High Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the further direction that was issued by trial judge was not in consonance with law.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The definition of “decree” in Section 2(2) “shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint”. Hence, the order of the Trial Court rejecting the plaint is subject to a first appeal under Section 96 of the CPC. The writ petition filed by the appellant was liable to be rejected on that ground. [Para 12][670-G]
2. The High Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction accepted the plea of the first and second defendants that the Trial Judge, having allowed the application Order 7 Rule 11(d), was not justified in granting to the appellant-plaintiff liberty to amend the plaint by seeking appropriate reliefs and paying the court fee. The proviso to Order 7 Rule 11 deals with a situation where time has been fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or for supplying of the requisite stamp paper. Under the proviso, the time so fixed shall not be extended unless the court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by a cause of an exceptional nature from complying within the time fixed by the court and that a refusal to extend time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff. The proviso evidently covers the cases falling within the ambit of clauses (b) and (c) and has no application to a rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d). In the circumstances, the High Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the further direction that was issued by the Trial Judge was not in consonance with law. [Para 13][671-A-B, G-H; 672-A-B]
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.