The High Court of Bombay, in Civil Revision Application No. 454 of 2024, upheld the dismissal of a suit filed by M/s. Chudiwala Company for seeking tenancy rights and restitution through a declaratory suit. The court reaffirmed the legal principles under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, barring suits that circumvent provisions of Section 144(2) of the CPC and Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

1. Background and Case History:

• Parties: M/s. Chudiwala Company (Plaintiff) vs. M/s. Mathuresh Infrapro Pvt Ltd. (Defendant No. 6), among others.
• Lease History: The property in dispute, initially leased in 1927, was later subleased in 1967. The plaintiff constructed residential buildings and sold them to individual owners.
• Eviction Suit: The original lessee filed an eviction suit (R.A.E. & R. Suit No. 772/6145 of 1968) which led to subsequent appeals and decrees, resulting in a complicated litigation history.

2. Proceedings and Pleadings:

• The Small Causes Court initially allowed the defendant’s application under Order 7 Rule 11(d), rejecting the plaint for being barred under procedural law.
• The Appellate Bench reversed this decision, reinstating the suit (R.A.D. Suit No. 227/2012), which prompted the current revision application.

3. Core Legal Arguments:

• For the Defendant: Asserted that the plaintiff’s suit was barred by Section 144(2) of the CPC as it indirectly sought restitution already denied by the Supreme Court and High Court, and violated Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act by omitting necessary reliefs.
• For the Plaintiff: Argued that the suit was for tenancy declaration only, with no claim for possession, and therefore was within its legal right.

Key Legal Provisions Discussed:

1. Order 7 Rule 11(d), CPC:

   • Permits rejection of plaints if the suit is barred by any law. The court affirmed that the plaintiff’s suit, cleverly drafted to avoid express provisions, could still be rejected under this rule.

2. Section 144(2), CPC:

   • Bars suits seeking restitution if such relief could be obtained by an application. The court highlighted that the plaintiff, despite not seeking direct possession, aimed for similar restitution, violating this provision.

3. Section 34, Specific Relief Act, 1963:

   • Prohibits mere declaratory relief when further relief is available but not sought. The court found that the plaintiff’s failure to seek possession invalidated the suit.

Ratio Decidendi:

The court emphasized that allowing suits to proceed through mere technicalities and clever drafting undermines the legal framework established by Order 7 Rule 11 and other relevant sections. The suit was correctly rejected for not aligning with the principles of legal procedure and attempting to bypass procedural bars.

Subjects:

• Civil Procedure
• Declaratory Suit
• Specific Relief Act
• Tenancy Rights
• Legal Procedure