Case Note & Summary
The appellant, M/s. Gangotri Developers, a registered partnership firm, along with another plaintiff, filed a suit in the Small Cause Court, Pune. The trial court, by order dated 16.01.2021, rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), holding that the suit was barred by Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, because the plaintiff firm was not existing in the records of the Registrar of Partnership Firms and the plaintiffs did not produce any document showing that they were partners in the Register of Firms on the date of filing. The appellant challenged this order before the Bombay High Court. The High Court noted that the issue was short: whether the trial court could summarily reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC on the ground that the suit was barred by law. The court observed that the law on Order VII Rule 11 CPC is settled: an application for rejection of plaint can be entertained only if the plaint on its face discloses that the suit is barred by any law in force, and not by referring to materials sought to be placed on record by the defendant. In this case, the trial court had relied on materials outside the plaint, such as the records of the Registrar of Firms, to conclude that the suit was barred. The High Court held that such an exercise is not permissible under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC; the defendant must lead evidence after framing issues to prove non-maintainability. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court's order, and directed that the suit be restored and proceeded with in accordance with law. The court also disposed of the interim application.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC - Barred by Law - The court held that an application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC can be entertained only if the plaint on the face of it discloses that the suit is barred by any law in force, and not by referring to materials sought to be placed on record by the defendant in answer to the plaint. (Paras 3-4) B) Partnership Law - Bar of Suit - Section 69 Indian Partnership Act, 1932 - Unregistered Firm - The trial court rejected the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff firm was not registered under the Partnership Act, but the High Court held that the defendant must lead evidence to prove non-registration; the plaint itself did not disclose the bar. (Paras 1, 4) C) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC - Extraneous Material - The court clarified that if the defendant requires to refer to any material other than the plaint, such exercise is permissible by way of leading evidence after framing issues, but not under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court could reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC on the ground that the suit was barred by Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, by referring to materials outside the plaint.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Impugned order dated 16.01.2021 set aside. Suit restored to file. Trial court directed to proceed with the suit in accordance with law. Interim Application disposed of.
Law Points
- Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC
- Section 69 Indian Partnership Act
- 1932
- Rejection of plaint
- Barred by law
- Plaint on its face
- Extraneous material
