Case Note & Summary
The case involves two civil revision applications filed by the defendants (applicants) against the order of the trial court dated 30.01.2019, which rejected their applications under Order 6 Rule 16 read with Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The plaintiff (non-applicant) had filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of certain immovable property. The defendants sought to strike out the plaint and certain paragraphs of the plaint on the grounds that the suit was barred by limitation and that the pleadings were unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious, and amounted to an abuse of the process of the court. The trial court dismissed the applications, holding that the issues raised required trial and could not be decided summarily. The High Court, in its judgment dated 19.03.2020, upheld the trial court's order. The court observed that the power under Order 6 Rule 16 CPC is to be exercised sparingly and only in clear cases. The court found that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and that the question of limitation was a mixed question of fact and law which could not be decided without evidence. The court also noted that the defendants had already filed their written statement and the suit was at the stage of framing of issues, indicating that the trial had progressed. The court held that the trial court had not committed any error of jurisdiction or material irregularity in rejecting the applications. Accordingly, both civil revision applications were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Striking Out Pleadings - Order 6 Rule 16 CPC - The court held that the power to strike out pleadings is to be exercised sparingly and only in clear cases where the pleadings are unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious, or tend to prejudice, embarrass, or delay the fair trial. The court found that the disputed questions of title and possession raised in the suit required trial and could not be summarily rejected. (Paras 10-15) B) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - The court held that for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) on the ground of limitation, the plaint must be barred by limitation on its face. The court found that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and the question of limitation was a mixed question of fact and law requiring evidence. (Paras 16-20) C) Civil Procedure - Abuse of Process of Court - Section 151 CPC - The court held that the inherent powers under Section 151 CPC cannot be used to bypass the specific provisions of Order 6 Rule 16 and Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The court found that the applicants failed to make out a case of abuse of process of court. (Paras 21-23)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in refusing to strike out the plaint and certain paragraphs of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 16 read with Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation and that the pleadings were unnecessary, scandalous, or vexatious.
Final Decision
Both civil revision applications are dismissed. The order of the trial court dated 30.01.2019 is upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Order 6 Rule 16 CPC
- Order 7 Rule 11 CPC
- Section 151 CPC
- abuse of process of court
- striking out pleadings
- summary rejection
- triable issues
