Published on: 04 September 2023 at 18:16 IST
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. v. Hede and Co. (2007)
Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that the plaint as a whole has to be read and it is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage and to read it out of the context or in isolation. It is held that Trial Court must not casually allow the Application under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the virtue of isolated and compartmentalized reading of the Plaint which is De Hors of the settled principles of the law.
25. The language of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is quite clear and unambiguous. The plaint can be rejected on the ground of limitation only where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. Mr Nariman did not dispute that “law” within the meaning of clause (d) of Order 7 Rule 11 must include the law of limitation as well.
It is well settled that whether a plaint discloses a cause of action is essentially a question of fact, but whether it does or does not must be found out from reading the plaint itself. For the said purpose the averments made in the plaint in their entirety must be held to be correct. The test is whether the averments made in the plaint, if taken to be correct in their entirety, a decree would be passed.
The averments made in the plaint as a whole have to be seen to find out whether clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 is applicable. It is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage and to read it out of the context in isolation. Although it is the substance and not merely the form that has to be looked into, the pleading has to be construed as it stands without addition or subtraction of words or change of its apparent grammatical sense.
As observed earlier, the language of clause (d) is quite clear but if any authority is required, one may usefully refer to the judgments of this Court in Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I [(2004) 9 SCC 512] and Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Assn. [(2005) 7 SCC 510]
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra
Published on: 04 September 2023 at 18:15 IST
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. v. Hede and Co. (2007)
Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that the plaint as a whole has to be read and it is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage and to read it out of the context or in isolation. It is held that Trial Court must not casually allow the Application under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the virtue of isolated and compartmentalized reading of the Plaint which is De Hors of the settled principles of the law.
Para 25. The language of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is quite clear and unambiguous. The plaint can be rejected on the ground of limitation only where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. Mr Nariman did not dispute that “law” within the meaning of clause (d) of Order 7 Rule 11 must include the law of limitation as well. It is well settled that whether a plaint discloses a cause of action is essentially a question of fact, but whether it does or does not must be found out from reading the plaint itself. For the said purpose the averments made in the plaint in their entirety must be held to be correct. The test is whether the averments made in the plaint, if taken to be correct in their entirety, a decree would be passed. The averments made in the plaint as a whole have to be seen to find out whether clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 is applicable. It is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage and to read it out of the context in isolation. Although it is the substance and not merely the form that has to be looked into, the pleading has to be construed as it stands without addition or subtraction of words or change of its apparent grammatical sense. As observed earlier, the language of clause (d) is quite clear but if any authority is required, one may usefully refer to the judgments of this Court in Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I [(2004) 9 SCC 512] and Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Assn. [(2005) 7 SCC 510]
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra
