Order 7 Rule 11 and dual representation: plaint cannot be rejected where the objection is only to counsel and attorney roles.

Rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC is unavailable where the objection concerns only the manner of representation and not a statutory bar to the suit. The court noted that the advocate and the constituted attorney were distinct persons performing separate roles, and the concern that they acted in a dual capacity did not show that the suit was barred by law. It also treated the firm as a sole proprietorship, not a partnership, and found no basis to merge the two capacities. On that reasoning, rejection of the plaint on the ground urged was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaint could be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground that the plaintiffs' counsel and constituted attorney were said to be acting in a dual capacity.

Analysis: The objection was not one of a statutory bar to the suit but concerned only the manner in which the plaintiffs were represented. Such a grievance did not attract clause (d) of Order 7 Rule 11, which applies where the suit is barred by law. On the facts, the material showed that the attorney and the advocate were two distinct persons discharging separate functions. The firm in question was found to be a sole proprietorship, not a partnership, and there was no basis to treat the constituted attorney as also acting as counsel or to hold that the two roles had merged.

Conclusion: The plaint could not be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 on the ground urged, and the impugned order was unsustainable.

---