Case Note & Summary
The case involves a civil revision application filed by the applicants (defendants in the original suit) against an order dated 21st April 2009 passed by the trial court, which refused to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The applicants had sought rejection of the plaint on two grounds: that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action and that the suit is barred by the law of limitation. The respondent (plaintiff) had filed the suit seeking certain reliefs. The trial court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the application, holding that the plaint does disclose a cause of action and is not barred by limitation. Aggrieved by this order, the applicants approached the High Court. The High Court, after hearing the learned counsel for both sides, examined the scope of enquiry under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The court noted that the settled legal position is that while deciding such an application, the court must read only the plaint in its entirety, presuming its contents to be correct, without any addition or subtraction. The court referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Kamala and others vs. K.T. Ishwarsa and others (2008) 12 SCC 661 and C. Natarajan vs. Ashimbai and others (2007) 14 SCC 183, which support this principle. The court also considered the submission of the applicants' counsel that in a given case, the court may look into documents referred to in the plaint which are suppressed by the plaintiff but produced by the defendant, relying on the decision of a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in Xavier Disuza and others vs. Luis Disuza and others, 2009 (1) Bom.C.R. 250 (Panaji Bench). However, the court found that in the present case, the trial court had correctly applied the law and had not erred in refusing to reject the plaint. The High Court held that the plaint, read as a whole, does disclose a cause of action and is not ex facie barred by limitation. Therefore, the civil revision application was dismissed, and the order of the trial court was upheld.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Scope of Enquiry - While deciding an application for rejection of plaint, the court must read only the plaint in its entirety, presuming its contents to be correct, without addition or subtraction. However, in a given case, the court may also look into documents referred to in the plaint which are suppressed by the plaintiff but produced by the defendant. (Paras 2-4) B) Civil Procedure - Cause of Action - Limitation - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - The question of whether the plaint discloses a cause of action or is barred by limitation must be determined solely on the basis of the averments in the plaint. If the plaint, read as a whole, discloses a cause of action and is not ex facie barred by limitation, the application for rejection must be dismissed. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the grounds that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action and is barred by limitation.
Final Decision
Civil revision application dismissed. Order of trial court refusing to reject plaint upheld.
Law Points
- Order VII Rule 11 CPC
- rejection of plaint
- cause of action
- limitation
- plaint alone to be considered
- documents referred in plaint may be looked into if suppressed
