Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a commercial suit for recovery of Rs.77,57,272 filed by the appellant, a private limited company, against the Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and others. The claim was based on a work order for supply of galvanized steel structures and allied materials for 220 KV and 132 KV Grid Sub-Stations. The supplies were to be made in three phases. The appellant supplied the first tranche of 40% material accepted by the respondents up to 30.03.2014. Payment was not released within the agreed period. During the contract, the State Government enhanced entry tax from 4% to 14% vide notification dated 14.07.2014. The appellant alleged that despite supplying the entire material prior to 20.08.2014, the respondents deducted Rs.19,50,993 towards enhanced entry tax and Rs.11,48,370 towards delayed supply. Before filing the suit, the appellant's grievance was rejected by the Centralized Standing Committee on 08.07.2016; the appellant's writ petition was dismissed on 04.05.2017; and the special appeal was dismissed as withdrawn on 20.09.2018 with liberty to approach the civil court. The appellant then instituted the commercial suit on 07.09.2019. The respondents filed a written statement raising preliminary objections to maintainability. The Commercial Court, invoking Order VII Rule 11 CPC, dismissed the suit on 27.10.2021 on grounds of non-maintainability and limitation, also applying res judicata and Order II Rule 2 CPC. Review was dismissed on 20.04.2022. The appellant challenged the rejection arguing that res judicata involved facts requiring evidence and could not be decided at the threshold; the writ petition and reply were not on record, and the trial court failed to compare pleadings. It was further argued that the trial court suo motu examined maintainability without an application, and considered the written statement, contrary to Order VII Rule 11 CPC which permits only plaint averments and documents filed with the plaint. On limitation, the appellant contended that the cause of action was disputed: the appellant pleaded accrual on 10.02.2019 while the respondents asserted 20.09.2014 or 08.07.2016, making it a mixed question of law and fact requiring evidence. The appellant also argued that findings under Order II Rule 2 and res judicata were mutually contradictory. The High Court observed that the impugned order rested on both limitation and res judicata, but res judicata could not be adjudicated within the limited jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. It confined its initial discussion to limitation, noting that if the appellant succeeded on limitation, res judicata would be academic. The court then reproduced the trial court's reasoning on limitation, which held that the cause of action accrued on 20.09.2014 or at latest 08.07.2016, and the suit filed on 07.09.2019 was barred. The trial court also invoked Order II Rule 2 CPC for the first-time claim of Rs.11,48,370 and Order VII Rule 6 CPC regarding pleading limitation. The appellant relied on the Supreme Court decision in Keshav Sood v. Kirti Pradeep Sood & Ors., which reiterated that under Order VII Rule 11 CPC only plaint averments and documents produced with the plaint can be looked into, not the defence or documents relied upon by the defendant. The High Court's extract from that judgment ended mid-sentence, but the principle affirmed that res judicata could not be decided in such an application. The final decision of the High Court was not included in the available extract.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Only plaint averments and documents filed with plaint can be considered; defence and documents relied upon by defendant cannot be looked into - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order VII Rule 11 - The Commercial Court suo motu considered the written statement and prior writ proceedings to reject the plaint, which was beyond the limited jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; the appellant contended that only plaint averments are to be examined - Held that res judicata cannot be adjudicated within the limited jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and the court must confine itself to plaint averments and documents filed with plaint (Paras 5, 8). B) Civil Procedure - Res Judicata - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Res judicata involves determination of facts requiring evidence and cannot be decided without comparing pleadings and reliefs in earlier proceedings - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order VII Rule 11 - The trial court held the suit barred by res judicata based on earlier writ orders, but the appellant argued that no evidence was recorded and the writ pleadings were not placed on record - Held that an order passed in writ jurisdiction without recording evidence cannot operate as res judicata in a subsequent civil suit, and the issue could not be decided at the threshold (Paras 3, 5). C) Limitation - Cause of Action - Limitation Act, 1963 - Mixed question of law and fact; plaintiff pleaded cause of action on 10.02.2019 while defendants asserted 20.09.2014 or 08.07.2016 - Limitation Act, 1963 - The Commercial Court held the suit barred by limitation by taking the cause of action as 20.09.2014 or 08.07.2016, but the plaintiff disputed the accrual date - Held that such a disputed limitation question could not be conclusively determined without evidence, and only plaint averments should have been considered under Order VII Rule 11 CPC (Paras 3.2, 7). D) Civil Procedure - Order II Rule 2 CPC - Bar of suit for omitted claim - The trial court applied Order II Rule 2 CPC despite no specific point of determination, and its findings under Order II Rule 2 and res judicata were mutually contradictory - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order II Rule 2 - The appellant argued that if the claim stood adjudicated so as to attract res judicata, the same could not simultaneously be barred under Order II Rule 2 on the ground that it had not been claimed earlier - Held that the trial court's findings on this aspect were inconsistent and could not be sustained at the threshold (Paras 3.2, 7). E) Civil Procedure - Suo Motu Rejection - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Court cannot suo motu proceed to reject the plaint without an application and by relying on defence - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order VII Rule 11 - The appellant contended that there was no application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and the trial court suo motu rejected the plaint, which is legally impermissible - Held that while considering rejection of plaint, only plaint averments are to be examined, and the defence or documents relied upon by the defendant cannot be taken into consideration (Para 3.1).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Commercial Court erred in suo motu rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC without an application and by considering the written statement; whether the bar of res judicata could be adjudicated within the limited scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC; whether the suit was barred by limitation when the cause of action was disputed as a mixed question of law and fact; whether Order II Rule 2 CPC could bar a part of the claim when no specific point of determination was framed and findings were inconsistent with res judicata
Law Points
- Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC
- only plaint averments and documents filed with plaint can be considered
- defence and documents relied upon by defendant cannot be looked into
- res judicata cannot be adjudicated within limited jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 CPC
- limitation as mixed question of law and fact cannot be decided at threshold without evidence
- Order II Rule 2 CPC bar cannot be applied simultaneously with res judicata when findings are contradictory
