Bombay High Court Dismisses Revision Against Rejection of Plaint Rejection Plea in Specific Performance Suit — Non-joinder of Co-purchaser Cured by Amendment. Court held that objection to non-joinder under Order I Rule 1 CPC was belated and plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC after amendment allowed.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR
  • 110
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case arises from a civil revision application filed by the defendants (petitioners) challenging an order dated 24th January 2012 passed by the trial court on Exhibit 87 in Special Civil Suit No.583 of 1997. The trial court had rejected the defendants' plea that the plaint should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) as being barred by law. The suit was originally filed in 1997 by Smt. Manjudevi (respondent no.1) seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property situated at Nagpur. In the plaint, she stated that she and her husband Vinodkumar (respondent no.2) had agreed to purchase the property from defendant nos.1 to 4 (the petitioners) and an agreement was executed in 1996, with both Manjudevi and Vinodkumar as parties. Certain earnest money was paid. Subsequently, they learned that the defendants had agreed to sell the property to others, giving rise to the cause of action. However, the suit was filed only by Manjudevi, without joining her husband as a plaintiff. The defendants raised an objection in their written statement regarding non-joinder of Vinodkumar. In 2005, Manjudevi moved an application for amendment to join her husband as plaintiff no.2. After litigation, the amendment was allowed by the High Court, which specifically stated that Vinodkumar joined the litigation from the date of the order (2005). The defendants then filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by law due to non-joinder of a necessary party. The trial court rejected that application, leading to the present revision. The High Court held that the objection to non-joinder was belatedly raised after issues were framed and trial had commenced. The defect was cured by the amendment allowing joinder of Vinodkumar. The plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as the suit is not barred by law. The revision was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to expedite the suit.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Non-joinder of Parties - The court considered whether a plaint can be rejected for non-joinder of a co-plaintiff when the suit was filed by only one of two joint purchasers under an agreement to sell. The court held that the objection was belatedly raised after issues were framed and trial had commenced, and the defect was cured by an amendment allowing joinder of the other purchaser. The plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as the suit is not barred by law. (Paras 2-5)

B) Civil Procedure - Joinder of Parties - Order I Rule 1 CPC - The court observed that under Order I Rule 1 CPC, all persons in whom any right to relief arises out of the same act or transaction may be joined as plaintiffs. In this case, both the plaintiff and her husband had a joint right to seek specific performance, and the suit originally filed only by the wife was defective. However, the defect was cured by subsequent amendment allowed by the High Court. (Paras 2-4)

C) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Plaint - Curing Defect - The court noted that the High Court had allowed the amendment to join the husband as plaintiff no.2, but specifically stated that he joined the litigation from the date of the order (2005). The court held that this amendment cured the defect of non-joinder, and the suit cannot be rejected on that ground. (Paras 3-4)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the plaint in a suit for specific performance is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground of non-joinder of a necessary party (the husband of the plaintiff) when the suit was originally filed by only one of the two co-purchasers under an agreement to sell.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the civil revision application, upholding the trial court's order rejecting the defendants' plea for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The court directed the trial court to expedite the suit.

Law Points

  • Order VII Rule 11 CPC
  • Order I Rule 1 CPC
  • non-joinder of parties
  • rejection of plaint
  • belated objection
  • amendment of plaint
  • specific performance
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2013 LawText (BOM) (10) 169

Civil Revision Application No.77 of 2013

2013-10-17

A. V. Nirgude, J.

Mr. V.V. Bhangde for Petitioners; Mr. P.V. Vaidya and Ms Ketki Jaltar for Respondent No.1

Shekhar s/o. Govindrao Kinkhede (since deceased through L.Rs.) and others

Smt. Manjudevi w/o. Vinodkumar Chhawchharia and another

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil revision against order rejecting application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in a suit for specific performance.

Remedy Sought

The petitioners (defendants) sought rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by law due to non-joinder of a necessary party (the husband of the plaintiff).

Filing Reason

The suit was filed by only one of the two co-purchasers under an agreement to sell, without joining the other co-purchaser as a plaintiff.

Previous Decisions

The trial court rejected the defendants' application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The High Court had earlier allowed an amendment to join the husband as plaintiff no.2, but stated that he joined the litigation from the date of the order (2005).

Issues

Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for non-joinder of a necessary party when the suit was filed by only one of two joint purchasers. Whether the belated objection and subsequent amendment curing the defect bar rejection of plaint.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that the suit was barred by law as both co-purchasers should have been joined as plaintiffs under Order I Rule 1 CPC, and the plaint should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Respondents argued that the objection was belated, issues were framed, and the defect was cured by amendment allowing joinder of the husband.

Ratio Decidendi

A plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground of non-joinder of a necessary party when the objection is raised belatedly after issues are framed and trial has commenced, and the defect has been cured by an amendment allowing joinder of the omitted party. The suit is not barred by law merely because the original plaint did not join all co-purchasers as plaintiffs.

Judgment Excerpts

This revision is challenging the order dated 24th January, 2012 passed on Exh.87 in Special Civil Suit No.583 of 1997 rejecting the plea of defendant nos.1 to 4 that the plaint should be rejected for being barred by law as provided in Rule 11 of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure. In view of this and in view of the avernments made in the plaint, both Manjudevi and her husband Vinodkumar ought to have been joined as plaintiffs in this suit because the right to relief arising from the transaction existed in both. But, the High Court, while allowing the application, specifically mentioned that Vinodkumar joined the litigation from the date of the order which was in the 2005.

Procedural History

The suit was filed in 1997 by Smt. Manjudevi alone for specific performance. Defendants raised objection in written statement regarding non-joinder of husband. In 2005, plaintiff moved amendment application to join husband, which was allowed by High Court with direction that husband joins from date of order. Defendants then filed application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint, which was rejected by trial court on 24th January 2012. Present revision filed against that order.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order VII Rule 11, Order I Rule 1
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Blanket Order to Deposit Licensed Firearms During Elections — Arms Licences Cannot Be Suspended Without Individual Assessment Under Section 17 of Arms Act, 1959. The court held that the Additional District Magistrate's bla...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal by Appellants in Partnership Dissolution and Rendition of Accounts Case on Grounds of Limitation. Claim of Oral Agreement to Continue Partnership After Fixed Term Expiry Rejected as There Was No Contract to Contrary and...