TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a plaint can be rejected in its entirety under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 when one relief is arguably barred but another substantive relief is maintainable; (ii) Whether a suit seeking cancellation or declaration that cheques are void or voidable is maintainable under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and whether an injunction can be granted to restrain criminal proceedings.
Issue (i): Whether a plaint can be rejected in its entirety under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 when one relief is arguably barred but another substantive relief is maintainable.
Analysis: The suit contained both a prayer to declare the cheques void or voidable and a prayer to restrain criminal proceedings. The latter was barred by Section 41(d) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, but the former disclosed a substantive cause falling for consideration under Section 31 of that Act. The governing principle is that a plaint cannot be dissected for the purpose of rejecting it only in part under Order 7 Rule 11(d). If the plaint as a whole discloses a maintainable relief, rejection of the entire plaint at the threshold is impermissible.
Conclusion: The rejection of the plaint in its entirety was unsustainable and was set aside.
Issue (ii): Whether a suit seeking cancellation or declaration that cheques are void or voidable is maintainable under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and whether an injunction can be granted to restrain criminal proceedings.
Analysis: A written instrument may be challenged by a person against whom it is void or voidable where its continued existence may cause serious injury, and such relief is contemplated by Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. By contrast, Section 41(d) bars injunctions that restrain institution or prosecution of criminal proceedings. Accordingly, the declaration/cancellation relief was legally cognizable, while the injunctive relief against criminal prosecution was barred. The presence of the barred prayer did not negate the maintainability of the separate substantive relief.
Conclusion: The declaration/cancellation relief was maintainable, while the prayer for injunction against criminal proceedings was barred; the suit could not be rejected as a whole on that basis.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order rejecting the plaint was quashed, and the suit was restored for further proceedings in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: Under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a plaint cannot be rejected in part; if any substantive relief in the plaint is maintainable, the plaint as a whole cannot be rejected merely because another relief is barred.
TaxTMI 
