Sayyed Ayaz Ali Vs. Prakash G. Goyal & Ors.
[CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2401-2402 OF 2021]
Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J
20TH JULY 2021
LAW POINT- Where the suit appears from the statements in the plaint to be barred by any law, the defects are not curable.
The appellant is the plaintiff in a suit instituted before the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Nagpur. The first respondent filed an application for the rejection of the plaint on the ground that it was barred under clauses (b) and (d) of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (“CPC”). The Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur allowed the application. However, while doing so, the appellant was “directed to seek proper relief and pay court fee thereon within 15 days, otherwise appropriate order will be passed”. This order of the Trial Judge, insofar as it permitted the appellant to carry out an amendment for seeking appropriate reliefs was assailed before the High Court in a Civil Revision by Defendants 1A to D and Defendant No 2 (Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to these proceedings).
The appellant instituted a Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution for challenging the order of the Trial Judge allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. The High Court decided both the civil revision application and the writ petition by a common judgment. The Single Judge held that since the plaint was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) there was no occasion to direct that an amendment be made to the plaint. The civil revision was allowed on this basis.
The writ petition filed by the appellant was held to be an “after thought and belated” and no relief was granted to the appellant in the writ proceedings. The appellant is essentially aggrieved by the decision of the Trial Court and the High Court to allow the application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC and has reached the Supreme Court.
OBSERVATION OF HON’BLE SUPREME COURT
NON-APPLICABILITY OF PROVISO TO ORDER 7 RULE 10 TO CLAUSE (d)
The proviso to Order 7 Rule 11 deals with a situation where time has been fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or for supplying of the requisite stamp paper. Under the proviso, the time so fixed shall not be extended unless the court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by a cause of an exceptional nature from complying within the time fixed by the court and that a refusal to extend time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.
The proviso evidently covers the cases falling within the ambit of clauses (b) and (c) and has no application to a rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d). In the circumstances, the High Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the further direction that was issued by the Trial Judge was not in consonance with law.
Since the dismissal of the writ petition has been upheld on the ground that the order rejecting the plaint operates as a decree within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the CPC, the appellant is at liberty to take recourse to the remedy against the rejection of the plaint as prescribed by the CPC.