TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Allows Petition, Directs Reconsideration</h1> <h3>P.R. Sukeshwala and Ors. Versus Devadatta V.S. Kerkar and Ors.</h3> The court allowed the petition, quashing the trial court's order and directing it to consider the petitioners' application under Order 7, Rule 11 on its ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the petitioners could file an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) for rejection of the plaint before filing their written statement.2. Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the petitioners' application as non-maintainable.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC before Filing Written StatementThe petitioners challenged the trial court's order that dismissed their application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint, arguing that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action. The petitioners contended that Rule 11 allows the court to reject a plaint at any stage if it does not disclose a cause of action. The petitioners emphasized that this rule does not restrict the timing of such an application, asserting that the court has a duty to reject a plaint lacking a cause of action even without the defendant's intervention.The court found considerable merit in the petitioners' submission. A bare reading of Rule 11 of Order 7 shows that it enables the defendant to raise a preliminary objection against the maintainability of the suit due to a formal defect in the plaint. This objection can be raised even before the defendant contests the suit on its merits by filing a written statement. The court noted that Rule 11 does not specify any stage at which such an objection must be raised, implying that it can be raised at any time.The court cited several Supreme Court judgments to support this view. In Smt. Patasibhai v. Ratanlal [1990]1SCR172, the Supreme Court held that the court must reject a plaint that does not disclose a cause of action, even if summons have been issued. Similarly, in Dhartipakar Madanlal Agarwal v. Shri Rajiv Gandhi [1987]3SCR369 and Samar Singh v. Kedar Nath AIR1987SC1926, the Supreme Court reiterated that Order 7, Rule 11 does not restrict the exercise of the court's power to any particular stage of the proceedings. The court can reject a plaint at any stage if it does not disclose a cause of action.Issue 2: Trial Court's Dismissal of the Application as Non-MaintainableThe trial court dismissed the petitioners' application under Order 7, Rule 11 on the ground that such objections should be raised in the written statement. The trial court did not decide the application on its merits, finding it non-maintainable.The petitioners argued that the trial court erred in this approach. They contended that the rejection of a plaint under Rule 11 is an independent remedy available to the defendant, separate from the merits of the case. The court agreed with this argument, noting that the trial court's decision to dismiss the application on procedural grounds without considering its merits was incorrect.The respondents' counsel argued that the petitioners' application was an attempt to protract the litigation and should have been raised at the first available opportunity. However, the court found this argument untenable, noting that the law does not specify any particular stage for raising such objections under Rule 11.The court also addressed the respondents' contention that the petitioners' application was hit by Order 8, Rule 2, which requires all defenses to be raised in the written statement. The court rejected this argument, stating that an application under Order 7, Rule 11 is not a defense plea but a challenge to the maintainability of the suit based on a formal defect in the plaint.The court concluded that the trial court should have entertained the petitioners' application on its merits and directed the trial court to do so within eight weeks from the receipt of the judgment.ConclusionThe petition was allowed, and the trial court's order dated 10-4-1990 was quashed and set aside. The trial court was directed to entertain the petitioners' application under Order 7, Rule 11 on its merits and dispose of it as per the law within eight weeks. The court emphasized that the power to reject a plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings, even before the filing of the written statement.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
