DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
21 September 2021
CORAM:
- Hon’ble Justice L. Nageswara Rao
- Hon’ble Justice BR Gavai
PARTIES:
- Appellants: Rajendra Bajoria and Ors
- Respondents: Hemant Kumar Jalan and Ors
SUBJECT
- The Supreme Court, in the instant judgment, said that a Court should reject a plaint if it believes that the relief sought in it cannot be granted under the law. In such cases, it is necessary to put an end to sham lawsuits in order to avoid wasting precious judicial time.
- The Court noted that Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC gives authority to the Court to reject the plaint when a plaintiff does not reveal the cause of action, and the Court must not allow the plaintiff to unduly protract the proceedings.
OVERVIEW
- Soorajmull Nagar Mull was a partnership firm established under a deed of partnership on December 6, 1943. The partners were Baijnath, Babulal, Sewbhagwan, Nandkishore, Mohanlal, Keshabdeo, Deokinandan, Chiranjilal and Kishorilal.
- None of the original partners of the firm are alive. The plaintiffs are the sons of late Chiranjilal Bajoria and Mohanlal and the defendants are legal heirs of other original partners of the firm.
- The plaintiffs filed a civil suit in the Calcutta High Court seeking declaration that they are entitled to the firm's assets and properties and to represent the firm in all proceedings, along with the defendant.
- They also sought orders for the disclosure of all of the firm's assets and properties and restraining orders against any defendant, who is a representative of the firm. A decree of dissolution was sought for winding up its affairs and realising the assets.
- The defendants prayed dismissal of the suit on basis that it does not state any cause of action. The Calcutta High Court came to the conclusion that the relief, as sought in the plaint, cannot be granted. Subsequently, an appeal was made before the Supreme Court.
RELEVANT PROVISIONS
- Order VII Rule 11(d)of the CPC:It states that if a suit is barred by limitation, the plaint of the case may be rejected. If it is barred by the law of limitation, then the hearing may be amended. It is the duty of the Court to determine if the non-disclosure of the cause for the claim or the plaint is barred under any law.
Where the plaintiff has shown that the suit was filed before the time limit of limitation has been met, the provisions of this Order will not be applicable. Computing limitation period involves law and facts.
ISSUE
- If none of the reliefs claimed under plaint can be granted to the plaintiff under the law, whether such suit can be allowed to go for trial?
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The High Court held that the reading of the averments in the plaint should not be only formal but also meaningful. If a clever drafting of pleadings has created the illusion of cause of action, then a meaningful reading would show that the pleadings do not disclose a clear right to sue and court should exercise its power under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC Of dismissing the suit.
- The Court also has to determine, in background of facts, if the relief sought in the plaint can actually be granted to the plaintiff. If it does not find that the relief can be granted, the suit should be thrown out at threshold.
- The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the High Court holding that when a plaintiff does not disclose the cause of action, the court will not allow the plaintiff to prolong the proceedings, which would result in the wasting of the Court's time. Hence, the Court will bring the case to a conclusion.
- The Apex Court has held that the power to terminate a civil action is drastic, and the conditions under which it can be done are to be strictly adhered to. However, Order VII Rule 11 of CPC requires the Court to determine if the plaint reveals a cause of action or not along with analysing documents relied upon.
CONCLUSION
The use of judicial time is precious. Sham litigations do not only tend to waste the time of the courts but is also detrimental, harming to the parties involved in such cases. It is essential perquisite for achieving justice that the time allotted for the Courts and cases is utilized in the most productive manner possible.
In order to address this issue, the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 has very rightly allowed courts to dismiss a suit at the threshold without conducting a trial or recording evidence, if it is satisfied that the action should be terminated on any grounds contained in this provision.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
Hope you enjoyed reading this judgement. Here are a few questions for you.Let us know about your answers in the comments section-
- What do you understand about Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC?
- What is the problem Rule 11 seeks to curb?
