Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Defendant No.4 in O.S.No.1246/2013, filed a Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 CPC challenging the order dated 12.12.2023 passed by the XLI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, rejecting IA No.10/2019 filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC for rejection of the plaint. The suit was filed by the respondents (plaintiffs) seeking certain reliefs. The petitioner contended that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action and was barred by limitation. The Trial Court rejected the application, observing that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and that the issue of limitation required trial. The High Court allowed the revision petition, holding that the Trial Court erred in considering the written statement and evidence of the defendant while deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The court reiterated that for an application under Order VII Rule 11, only the plaint averments and documents annexed thereto are relevant. Defenses or evidence of the defendant cannot be considered. The court also noted that the plaint alleged a continuing wrong, and therefore, the question of limitation could not be decided at that stage. The impugned order was set aside, and the application under Order VII Rule 11 was allowed, resulting in rejection of the plaint.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) - Plaint Averments - The court must consider only the plaint allegations and documents annexed thereto while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Defenses or evidence of the defendant cannot be looked into. The Trial Court erred by considering the defendant's written statement and evidence, thereby rejecting the application. Held that the application for rejection of plaint must be decided solely on the basis of the plaint averments (Paras 5-10). B) Limitation - Cause of Action - Continuing Wrong - The plaint alleged a continuing wrong and that the cause of action arose within limitation. The court cannot decide limitation as a preliminary issue under Order VII Rule 11 unless the plaint is ex facie barred. Since the plaint contained averments of continuing wrong, the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) was not maintainable (Paras 7-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC for rejection of plaint, and whether the plaint discloses a cause of action and is not barred by limitation.
Final Decision
The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.12.2023 passed by the XLI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, on IA No.10/2019 in O.S.No.1246/2013 is set aside. Consequently, IA No.10/2019 is allowed and the plaint in O.S.No.1246/2013 is rejected.
Law Points
- Order VII Rule 11 CPC
- rejection of plaint
- plaint averments
- demurrer
- cause of action
- limitation
- bar by law
