Case Note & Summary
The appeal arises from an order dated 05.04.2016 passed by the 42nd Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore on I.A.No.37 in O.S.No.8068/2011. The appellants, who are the plaintiffs in the suit, filed this Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) praying to set aside the said order. The core legal question that required determination was whether Order VII Rule 11 of CPC permits partial rejection of a plaint or only rejection of the plaint as a whole. The court, after hearing learned counsel on both sides by consent, answered the question by holding that a plaint as a whole alone can be rejected and partial rejection of a plaint is not permissible in law. The judgment was delivered orally by H.G.Ramesh J., with Mohammad Nawaz J. concurring. The court did not delve into the merits of the case beyond this legal issue, as the appeal was disposed of on this preliminary point. The decision clarifies the scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, emphasizing that the provision does not allow for piecemeal rejection of parts of a plaint.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Partial Rejection - The court considered whether Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 permits partial rejection of a plaint. Held that a plaint as a whole alone can be rejected and partial rejection of a plaint is not permissible in law. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether Order VII Rule 11 of CPC permits partial rejection of a plaint or a plaint as a whole alone can be rejected?
Final Decision
The court held that a plaint as a whole alone can be rejected and partial rejection of a plaint is not permissible in law. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
Law Points
- Order VII Rule 11 CPC permits only rejection of plaint as a whole
- not partial rejection
Case Details
2018 LawText (KAR) (06) 8
Regular First Appeal No.1114/2016 (PAR)
H.G.Ramesh, Mohammad Nawaz
Ms. Vanaja Vasantha Kumari for Sri S. Nagaraj (for appellants), Sri K. Sreedhar for C/R1, Sri M.B. Chandra Chooda for R2
Kanthamma, P.N. Kamalamma, Chandrika
N. Ananda Kumar Reddy, B.S. Vidya
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Regular First Appeal against an order on I.A.No.37 in a civil suit
Remedy Sought
Appellants (plaintiffs) sought to set aside the order dated 05.04.2016 passed by the trial court on I.A.No.37 in O.S.No.8068/2011
Filing Reason
The appellants challenged the order of the trial court which allegedly permitted partial rejection of the plaint
Previous Decisions
The trial court passed an order on I.A.No.37 in O.S.No.8068/2011 on 05.04.2016
Issues
Whether Order VII Rule 11 of CPC permits partial rejection of a plaint or only rejection of the plaint as a whole?
Submissions/Arguments
Not mentioned in the text
Ratio Decidendi
Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 permits only rejection of the plaint as a whole and does not allow partial rejection of a plaint.
Judgment Excerpts
Whether Order VII Rule 11 of CPC permits partial rejection of a plaint or a plaint as a whole alone can be rejected? This is the question of law that requires determination in this appeal. The question is answered by holding that a plaint as a whole alone can be rejected and partial rejection of a plaint is not permissible in law.
Procedural History
The trial court passed an order on I.A.No.37 in O.S.No.8068/2011 on 05.04.2016. The plaintiffs filed Regular First Appeal No.1114/2016 under Section 96 CPC before the High Court of Karnataka challenging the said order. The appeal was heard by a Division Bench and disposed of by this judgment.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order VII Rule 11, Section 96
