Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India heard cross-appeals arising from a civil suit filed by Alpana Gupta (plaintiff) against APG Towers Pvt. Ltd. and another (defendants) seeking declaration, permanent injunction, and alternatively, recovery of damages concerning a piece of land. The defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking rejection of the plaint. The Trial Court dismissed this application on 16.01.2017. The defendants challenged this order by filing revisions before the High Court of Delhi. The High Court, by its impugned order dated 27.07.2017 and 23.08.2017, disposed of the revisions with a conditional direction: the plaintiff was given liberty to apply for amendment of the plaint on or before 11th August 2017; if the amendment application was filed, it would be considered on merits; if not filed within time, the right to amend would stand closed and the plaint would stand rejected. Both parties appealed to the Supreme Court: the plaintiff challenged the conditional order, and the defendants also appealed against the same order. The Supreme Court, after hearing counsel, allowed the plaintiff's appeals and set aside the High Court's order. The Court held that the defendants' pleas under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC were not maintainable as they did not fall within any of its clauses. The proper course was for the defendants to file their written statements and raise all factual and legal pleas therein. The Trial Court was directed to frame issues under Order 14 CPC and decide the suit on merits without being influenced by any prior observations. Consequently, the defendants' appeals were disposed of. The decision emphasizes that applications for rejection of plaint should be sparingly used and that contested factual issues should be resolved through trial.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - The defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking dismissal of the suit for declaration and injunction. The Trial Court dismissed the application. The High Court, in revision, directed the plaintiff to amend the plaint within a specified time, failing which the plaint would stand rejected. The Supreme Court held that the pleas raised by the defendants did not fall within any clause of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and ought to be raised in the written statement. The impugned order was set aside and the defendants' application was dismissed. (Paras 10-13) B) Civil Procedure - Written Statement - Order 14 CPC - The Supreme Court observed that the proper course for the defendants is to file their written statements and raise all pleas on facts and law therein. The Trial Court was directed to frame issues under Order 14 CPC and decide the suit on merits without being influenced by any observations made in the proceedings. (Paras 11-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in directing the plaintiff to amend the plaint or face rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, and whether the defendants' application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was maintainable.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the plaintiff (CAs @ SLP 31539-31540/2017), set aside the impugned order of the High Court and the order of the Trial Court, and dismissed the defendants' applications under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The connected appeals by the defendants (CAs @ SLP 5318-5319/2018) were disposed of. The Trial Court was directed to decide the suit on merits without being influenced by any observations made in the proceedings.
Law Points
- Order 7 Rule 11 CPC
- Pleadings
- Written Statement
- Rejection of Plaint
- Amendment of Plaint
