Case Note & Summary
The judgment involves two writ petitions arising from orders of the trial court rejecting plaints under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). In Writ Petition No. 12418 of 2015, the petitioners (original defendants) challenged the rejection of their plaint in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The trial court had rejected the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation and that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action. In Writ Petition No. 8089 of 2015, the petitioners (original defendants) challenged the rejection of their plaint in a suit for declaration and injunction. The trial court had rejected the plaint on similar grounds. The High Court examined the plaint averments in both cases and found that the plaints did disclose a cause of action and that the question of limitation could not be decided without a trial. The court held that while considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the court must look at the plaint averments alone and cannot rely on the written statement or other documents filed by the defendant. The court also held that the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is a demurrer power and must be exercised only when the plaint, on its face, discloses no cause of action or is barred by law. The court set aside the orders of the trial court and directed that the suits be restored to their original numbers and decided on merits.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - Cause of Action - The court must examine the plaint averments alone to determine if a cause of action is disclosed; documents filed by the defendant or the written statement cannot be considered at this stage. The trial court erred in relying on the written statement and documents of the defendant to conclude that the suit was barred by limitation. (Paras 10-15) B) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - Limitation - The question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and cannot be decided solely on the basis of the plaint unless the plaint itself clearly shows that the suit is barred. In the present case, the plaint contained averments that the cause of action was continuing, and therefore, the rejection was premature. (Paras 16-20) C) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - Demurrer - The power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is a demurrer power and must be exercised only when the plaint, on its face, discloses no cause of action or is barred by law. The court cannot go beyond the plaint or conduct a mini-trial. (Paras 10-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the plaints under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground that the suits were barred by limitation and did not disclose a cause of action.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed both writ petitions, set aside the orders of the trial court rejecting the plaints, and directed that the suits be restored to their original numbers and decided on merits in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Order 7 Rule 11 CPC
- cause of action
- limitation
- plaint rejection
- demurrer
- averments in plaint
- written statement
- documents of defendant
