Published on: November 08, 2023 at 00:01 IST
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: Geetha V. Nanjundaswamy (2023)
Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that Civil Suit (Plaint) cannot be rejected under the provision of Order 7 Rule 11(d) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 on the basis of few prayers. It is held that the plaint cannot be bifurcated as it did not disclose any cause of action against certain defendants. It is held that the plaint can either be rejected as a whole or not at all. It is held that it is not permissible to reject plaint qua any particular portion of a plaint including against some of the defendant(s) and continue the same against the others.
In no uncertain terms the Court has held that if the plaint survives against certain defendant(s) and/or properties, Order 7 Rule 11(d) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 will have no application at all, and the suit as a whole must then proceed to trial.
10. If the statements in the plaint are taken to be true, the joint family properties may enure to the benefit of its members and they may well be available for partition. This is a matter of trial, the result of which would depend upon the evidence adduced by the Plaintiff.
At this stage, we are not concerned with the correctness of the averments, except to state that the Plaintiffs have the carriage of the proceedings, and have to discharge the heavy burden of proving their case. In so far as the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is concerned, this Court will proceed only that far, to examine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action, and no further.
11. The High Court committed an error by examining the merits of the matter. It pre-judged the truth, legality and validity of the sale deed under which the Defendants No. 4 to 14 claim title. This is not to say that the Plaintiffs have any less burden to prove their case or even that their case is probable. Simply put, the High Court could not have anticipated the truth of the averments by assuming that the alleged previous sale of the property is complete or that it has been acted upon.
The approach adopted by the High Court is incorrect and contrary to the well-entrenched principles of considering an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC. Under these circumstances, we set aside the judgment and the order passed by the High Court and dismiss the application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, and restore the suit even with respect to properties mentioned under Schedule A of the Plaint.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra