2023 (4) TMI 476 - HC - Indian Laws

High Court allows appeal, emphasizing need for adjudication on merits. Distinction clarified between 'no cause of action' and 'does not disclose cause of action.'

Balaji, Latha, Kandappa, Dinakaran, Jayanthi and Jansirani @ Devi Versus Arumugam, Anandan @ Ananda Kumar, Ganesan, Gopi, Giridaran, Gejaraju, Vasudevan, Gayathri, Radhika and Radhika

The High Court set aside the Trial Court's order rejecting the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, allowing the appeal suit ... Suit for declaration and permanent injunction and for recovery of possession - rejection of plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure - HELD THAT:- Order VII Rule 7 denotes relief to be specifically stated in the plaint. Accordingly, every plaint shall specifically state the relief which plaintiff claims, either simply or alternatively, and it shall not be necessary to ask for general or other relief which may always be given at the Court, just to the same extent as if it had been asked for, and the same rule shall apply to any relief claimed by the defendant in his written statement. Rule 9 speaks about “procedure on admitting the plaint”, Rule 10 stipulates “return of plaint”. Thus, Rule 11 contemplates “rejection of plaint”. Once the plaint is not in compliance with the other rules contemplated under Order VII, then such claims are to be rejected under Rule 11 of CPC. If it is rejected on the ground stipulated under Rule 11, then the plaintiff is entitled to institute a fresh suit, setting out the corrections or cause of action as the case may be and proceed with the suit. No other ground on which the plaint can be rejected, other than those mentioned under Rule 11 can be saved under Rule 13, except when the suit was instituted afresh, correcting the cause of action or mistakes or otherwise. Holistic reading of the Order VII would clarify that no plaint is to be rejected on merits. The Trial Court cannot adjudicate the merits in an Interlocutory Application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if the cause of action is improperly set out, the plaint as a whole must be read and merely on the basis of the facts in one paragraph or in the cause of action paragraph, plaint need not be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This exactly is the reason why this Court has to emphasise that the power under Order VII Rule 11 has to be exercised sparingly and even if the plaint is rejected on the ground stipulated under Rule 11, then the plaintiff is entitled to institute a fresh suit by setting out the correct cause of action or correcting the mistakes on which the plaint was rejected, or otherwise. The intention of the Court is not to deprive a person to get relief on the adjudication of the facts on merits. The spirit of the code in this aspect is to be borne in mind by the Courts while dealing with the Interlocutory Applications filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Appeal allowed. Issues:- Appeal against rejection of plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.- Suit for declaration, permanent injunction, and recovery of possession.- Consideration of mixed questions of fact and law.- Interpretation and application of Order VII Rule 11 and Rule 13 of CPC.Analysis:1. The appeal suit was filed against the order and decree passed by the II Additional District Judge, Vellore @ Ranipet, rejecting the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The suit was instituted by the appellants for declaration, permanent injunction, and recovery of possession against the respondents, who were the defendants in the suit.3. The Trial Court allowed an Interlocutory Application filed by the defendants for rejection of the plaint based on the ground of limitation, as there was a delay in the institution of the suit.4. The appellants contended that the rejection was improper as the suit involved mixed questions of fact and law, which should have been tried on merits rather than summarily rejected.5. The Court emphasized that the power under Order VII Rule 11 should be exercised sparingly, and even if a plaint is rejected, the plaintiff is entitled to file a fresh suit correcting the cause of action or mistakes.6. It was clarified that a plaint should not be rejected on merits, and the Trial Court cannot adjudicate the merits in an Interlocutory Application under Order VII Rule 11.7. The judgment highlighted the distinction between 'no cause of action' and 'does not disclose a cause of action,' indicating that a plaint may be rejected if the cause of action is not properly disclosed, allowing the plaintiff to file a fresh suit with corrections.8. Ultimately, the High Court set aside the Trial Court's order rejecting the plaint and allowed the appeal suit to proceed, emphasizing the need to adjudicate the issues raised between the parties on merits and in accordance with the law.This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the legal issues involved, the Court's reasoning, and the ultimate decision rendered by the High Court in this case.