TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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
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 part under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 when it survives against some defendants or properties. (ii) Whether the impugned order could be sustained under Order VI Rule 16 or Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Issue (i): Whether a plaint can be rejected in part under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 when it survives against some defendants or properties.
Analysis: Order VII Rule 11 speaks to rejection of the plaint, which means the plaint as a whole. A partial rejection is not contemplated by the rule. If the plaint discloses a cause of action against some defendants or in relation to some properties, Order VII Rule 11 cannot be invoked to sever and reject only the vulnerable portion while allowing the remainder of the suit to proceed. The proper consequence in such a situation is that the suit survives and proceeds to trial.
Conclusion: The rejection of only part of the plaint was impermissible and the order could not be sustained under Order VII Rule 11.
Issue (ii): Whether the impugned order could be sustained under Order VI Rule 16 or Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Analysis: Striking out pleadings under Order VI Rule 16 is confined to matter that is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, prejudicial, embarrassing, delaying, or otherwise an abuse of process. Those grounds were not attracted. Order XIV Rule 2 applies after issues are framed and concerns disposal on a preliminary issue of law relating to jurisdiction or a statutory bar. It did not justify the course adopted in the case.
Conclusion: The impugned order was not supportable under Order VI Rule 16 or Order XIV Rule 2.
Final Conclusion: The challenged order was set aside and the suit was directed to proceed against the defendants, with time granted for filing the written statement.
Ratio Decidendi: Order VII Rule 11 authorises rejection only of the plaint as a whole, and where the plaint survives against some defendants or claims, partial rejection is impermissible; any selective excision of pleadings must rest, if at all, on the specific grounds under Order VI Rule 16.
TaxTMI 
