SC: Liberty Cannot Be Granted To Amend Plaint While Rejecting It Under Order Vii Rule 11(D) Of Civil Procedure Code

BACKGROUND

• The first respondent (before the Supreme Court) filed an application before the Civil Judge to quash a complaint on the ground that it was barred under clauses (b) and (d) of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure that was filed by the appellant.
• The Trial judge allowed the said application of quashing the plaint but permitted the appellant to amend the complaint and the said order of the Trial Court was challenged before the High Court of Bombay through Writ Petition under Article 227.
• The High Court held that since the complaint was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d), there was no ground to grant the amendment of the said complaint. The appellant was aggrieved with the order of Trial Court and High Court approached the Apex Court.

SUBMISSIONS

• The counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court has erred in their judgment when it upheld the order of the Trial Court that the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC had to be allowed because the provision states that where the complaint seems to be barred, it should be rejected.
• The counsel for the respondent objected to the maintainability of the writ petition before the HC on the ground that that remedy before the appellant was to file a regular appeal but instead, he filed a writ petition to avoid the issue of limitation.
• The Appellant's counsel submitted back that the respondent had filed a civil revision application and therefore the appellant was justified in the filing a writ petition.

ORDER

• The Bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah observed that the proviso to Rule 11 covers the cases falling under clauses (a) and (b) and it does not apply to rejection of complaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d).
• The Court affirmed the judgment of the High Court and held that while rejecting a complaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d), the Court granted permission to the complainant to amend the complaint.

What do you think of this case?