Case Note & Summary
The present Civil Revision Application was filed by the applicants (original defendants) against the order dated 07/11/2022 passed by the 14th Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagpur, rejecting their application (Exhibit 15) for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The respondent (original plaintiff) had instituted a summary suit under Order 37 CPC for recovery of Rs.11,50,398/-, registered as Summary Civil Suit No. 22/2022. The applicants contended that the plaint was defective as it did not mention dates and sums in figures and words as required by Order 6 Rule 2(3) CPC, and that the plaint was not separately verified as required by Order 37 Rule 2 CPC. The Trial Court rejected the application, holding that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and that the verification was sufficient. Aggrieved, the applicants filed the present revision. The High Court examined the provisions of Order 6 Rule 2(3) and Order 37 Rule 2 CPC. It held that Order 6 Rule 2(3) applies to pleadings in general and does not require that every date and sum be stated in figures and words in the plaint; the plaint must only contain a concise statement of material facts. The court further held that Order 37 Rule 2 does not mandate a separate verification; the general verification under Order 6 Rule 15 CPC is adequate. The court also noted that the applicants failed to file an application for leave to defend within 10 days as required by Order 37 Rule 3 CPC, and that they cannot circumvent the summary procedure by filing an application for rejection of plaint. The High Court found no illegality or material irregularity in the Trial Court's order and dismissed the revision application.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC - The court considered whether the plaint in a summary suit under Order 37 CPC was liable to be rejected for non-compliance with Order 6 Rule 2(3) CPC regarding stating dates and sums in figures and words. Held that Order 6 Rule 2(3) applies only to pleadings in general and not specifically to plaints in summary suits; the plaint sufficiently disclosed a cause of action and the application for rejection was rightly dismissed (Paras 5-10). B) Civil Procedure - Summary Suit - Verification of Plaint - Order 37 Rule 2 CPC - The court examined whether the plaint in a summary suit requires separate verification as per Order 37 Rule 2 CPC. Held that Order 37 Rule 2 does not mandate a separate verification; the general verification under Order 6 Rule 15 CPC is sufficient. The Trial Court correctly rejected the applicants' contention (Paras 11-14). C) Civil Procedure - Leave to Defend - Order 37 Rule 3 CPC - The court noted that the applicants failed to file an application for leave to defend within the prescribed period of 10 days from service of summons. Held that the defendants cannot circumvent the summary procedure by filing an application for rejection of plaint instead of seeking leave to defend (Paras 15-16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court erred in rejecting the application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC on the grounds that the plaint did not mention dates and sums in figures and words as required by Order 6 Rule 2(3) CPC and that the plaint was not separately verified as required by Order 37 Rule 2 CPC.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application, upholding the Trial Court's order dated 07/11/2022 rejecting the applicants' application for rejection of plaint. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Order 6 Rule 2(3) CPC does not require dates and sums to be stated in figures and words in the plaint
- Order 37 Rule 2 CPC does not require separate verification of plaint
- Order 37 Rule 3 CPC requires leave to defend application to be filed within 10 days
- Order 7 Rule 11(a) CPC rejection of plaint only if plaint does not disclose cause of action
