2017 (9) TMI 2051 - HC - Indian Laws

Petition allowed; civil suit quashed as subject matter already pending before Divisional Commissioner, single remedy required

Dalip Singh Versus Lal Singh and others

The HC allowed the petition, holding the civil proceedings were not maintainable because the subject matter and cause of action were already pending ... Dismissal of application filed by the petitioner for rejection of the plaint - subject matter of the civil suit as also the appeal/revision pending before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi was same - disclosure of cause of action stricto-sensu - HELD THAT:- In Bank of India vs. Lekhimoni Das and others [2000 (3) TMI 1130 - SUPREME COURT], the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that “as a general principle where two remedies are available under law one of them should not be taken as operating in derogation of the other. It was further held that if a party has elected to pursue one remedy he is bound by it and cannot on his failing therein proceed under another provision. Indubitably, the proceedings that had been decided by the Assistant Collector, Jogindernagar had already been assailed before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi and the same were otherwise pending at the time when the suit came to be filed by the plaintiff questioning therein again the order passed by the Assistant Collector, Jogindernagar. The proceedings before the Civil Court, obviously were not maintainable and were liable to be quashed. The order passed by the learned Court below is not legally sustainable and is liable to be set-aside. The order passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Jogindernagar, District Mandi, H.P. on 28.4.2016 in CMA No. 122-VI/2016 is set-aside - Petition allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether a civil suit challenging orders of revenue authorities is maintainable when parallel appellate/revisional proceedings in revenue forum with respect to the same subject-matter are pending. 2. Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 151 when an alternative remedy before the revenue forum has been elected and is pending. 3. Whether a trial Court, in deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11, may confine itself solely to the question of whether the plaint discloses a cause of action without considering the availability and election of alternative remedies and the consequences of parallel proceedings. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Maintainability of civil suit where parallel revenue proceedings are pending Legal framework: The principles governing concurrence of remedies and election between remedies require that where two remedies are available in law one should not be used to derogate from the other; election to pursue one remedy ordinarily binds the party and may preclude pursuing the other in appropriate circumstances. The procedural code empowers rejection of plaints which disclose no cause of action or are otherwise barred by law. Precedent Treatment: The Court relied on binding precedent of the apex forum articulating the general principle that an election to pursue one remedy may operate as a bar to proceeding under another remedy; that disposal of a summary remedy can operate as a bar to a regular suit. The earlier authority was applied rather than distinguished or overruled. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that the subject-matter of the civil suit and the proceedings before the revenue authorities were identical and that the revenue proceedings had already been instituted (and were pending) at the time of filing of the suit. Applying the general principle, the Court held that allowing parallel litigation before two forums would be impermissible in the circumstances because it would enable re-agitation of the same orders already before a statutory revenue forum. The existence of pending appellate/revisional proceedings in the revenue forum rendered the civil forum inappropriate for entertaining a parallel challenge to the same orders. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where a party has elected and pursued an alternative remedy in a revenue forum and the same subject-matter is the basis of a subsequently instituted civil suit, the civil proceedings are not maintainable and may be barred; trial courts must recognize the bar arising from parallel proceedings. Obiter - observations on differences between summary and regular procedures in other statutory contexts that were cited for context. Conclusion: The civil suit challenging revenue orders was not maintainable while parallel proceedings on the same subject-matter were pending before the revenue forum; the civil proceedings were liable to be quashed/rejected for that reason. Issue 2 - Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 when alternative remedy exists Legal framework: Order VII Rule 11 permits rejection of a plaint on specified grounds including that the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by law. Section 151 preserves inherent powers of the Court to prevent abuse of process. Combined, these provisions enable rejection where maintenance of the suit would amount to permitting duplicative or vexatious proceedings when an effective alternative remedy exists. Precedent Treatment: The Court applied controlling authority establishing that election of remedy and prior initiation of an alternative statutory remedy can bar subsequent civil proceedings; that disposal or pendency of the alternative remedy impacts maintainability of a suit. The precedent was followed and applied to the facts. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court found that the plaint sought to challenge the same orders already under challenge in the revenue forum, and therefore, permitting the suit would amount to parallel proceedings in two forums. The trial Court's dismissal of the rejection application without addressing this specific ground was criticized. On application of the statutory provisions and inherent powers, the High Court concluded that the plaint fell within a ground for rejection under Order VII Rule 11 as barred by law because parallel statutory remedy had been availed. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where subject-matter of a suit is already under judicial/administrative challenge in a competent statutory forum, the plaint may be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 read with inherent jurisdiction as being barred by law; trial Courts must consider election and existence of alternative remedies when adjudicating such applications. Obiter - none material beyond application of settled principle. Conclusion: The plaint was rightly liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 because parallel proceedings in the revenue forum on the same subject-matter rendered the civil suit barred. Issue 3 - Proper scope of trial Court's inquiry on an application under Order VII Rule 11 Legal framework: An application under Order VII Rule 11 requires the Court to examine grounds based on the plaint and accompanying material to ascertain whether the plaint discloses a cause of action or is otherwise barred by law; the Court's inquiry is limited to matters apparent on the face of the plaint and relevant documents, but includes consideration of whether alternate remedies have been elected and are pending. Precedent Treatment: The Court relied on the distinction that a court must not mechanically confine its inquiry to a narrow conception of cause of action where other grounds for rejection (including existence of parallel statutory remedies) are apparent; prior authority recognizing that the pendency of an alternative remedy can bar a suit was applied. Interpretation and reasoning: The High Court faulted the trial Court for addressing only whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action in the strict sense and for relying on a decision that focused on cause of action, without advertence to the specific ground raised - that identical proceedings were pending before the revenue forum. The trial Court's singular focus led to failure to consider whether permitting the suit would allow duplication and parallel adjudication contrary to the principle forbidding election of inconsistent remedies. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - in adjudicating an Order VII Rule 11 application the trial Court must consider all grounds available on the face of the plaint, including whether the subject-matter is already before another competent forum; failure to do so is legally unsustainable. Obiter - criticism of reliance on authority addressing a different factual question to the exclusion of the alternate-remedy ground. Conclusion: The trial Court erred in confining its inquiry to cause of action and not considering the pending parallel proceedings; the order dismissing the rejection application was set aside and the plaint ordered rejected. Final Disposition The order of the trial Court dismissing the application for rejection of the plaint was set aside and the suit was ordered rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court leaving parties to bear their own costs and disposing of pending applications and interim orders accordingly.