2023 (4) TMI 476

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nts in the suit. The suit was instituted for declaration and permanent injunction and for recovery of possession. 3. It is not in dispute that the defendants in the suit filed written statement and thereafter an Interlocutory Application was filed in IA No.4 of 2020 for rejection of plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. The Trial Court adjudicated the issues and allowed the application and the plaint was rejected. Thus, the appellants have chosen to prefer the present appeal Suit. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs mainly contended that the appellants herein earlier filed suit for partition, which was dismissed and the order of the Trial Court was confirmed in the appeal suit. 6. There is a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gard, the limitation in the present case is to be adjudicated with reference to the facts as well as the events. It is a mixed question of facts and law and therefore, an adjudication becomes imminent. Whenever there is a mixed question of fact and law, it is preferable to try the suit by framing the issues rather than rejecting the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 11. All suits are to be tried on merits. An opportunity of adjudication need not be denied to anyone of the parties, merely based on certain technical grounds. No doubt, the limitation point can be raised as a preliminary issue. However, in the present case, the appellants have earlier instituted suit for partition and the present Appeal Suit is in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntioned shall not of its own force preclude the plaintiff from presenting a fresh plaint in respect of the same cause of action." 16. Holistic reading of Order VII Rule 11 and Rule 13 of CPC would reveal that Order VII Rule 11 is intended to reject the plaint more on technical grounds rather on merits. Thus, even in case, a plaint is rejected under Order VII Rule 11 by the Courts, then the plaintiff is entitled to institute a fresh suit by correcting the cause of action or the mistakes or otherwise, by invoking Order VII Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Thus, rejection of plaint is not a total bar of institution of a fresh suit by the plaintiff which can be instituted after setting out the correct cause of action or by rectifying th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h 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. 19. 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 C....