Right to court to reject plaint Vs Right to court to strike off pleading

 We do not deem it necessary to elaborate on all other
arguments as we are inclined to accept the objection of the
appellant(s) that the relief of rejection of plaint in exercise of
powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC cannot be pursued only
in respect of one of the defendant(s). In other words, the plaint
has to be rejected as a whole or not at all, in exercise of power
Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC. Indeed, the learned Single Judge
rejected this objection raised by the appellant(s) by relying on
the decision of the Division Bench of the same High Court.
However, we find that the decision of this Court in the case of
Sejal Glass Limited (supra) is directly on the point. In that
case, an application was filed by the defendant(s) under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC stating that the plaint disclosed no cause of
action. The civil court held that the plaint is to be bifurcated as
it did not disclose any cause of action against the director’s

defendant(s) 2 to 4 therein. On that basis, the High Court had
opined that the suit can continue against defendant No.1company
alone. The question considered by this Court was
whether such a course is open to the civil court in exercise of
powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC. The Court answered
the said question in the negative by adverting to several
decisions on the point which had consistently held that the
plaint can either be rejected as a whole or not at all. The Court
held that it is not permissible to reject plaint qua any particular
portion of a plaint including against some of the defendant(s)
and continue the same against the others. In no uncertain terms
the Court has held that if the plaint survives against certain
defendant(s) and/or properties, Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC will
have no application at all, and the suit as a whole must then
proceed to trial.


13. Indubitably, the plaint can and must be rejected in exercise
of powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC on account of noncompliance
of mandatory requirements or being replete with any
institutional deficiency at the time of presentation of the plaint,
ascribable to clauses (a) to (f) of Rule 11 of Order 7 of CPC. In
other words, the plaint as presented must proceed as a whole or
can be rejected as a whole but not in part. In that sense, the
relief claimed by respondent No.1 in the notice of motion(s)
which commended to the High Court, is clearly a jurisdictional
error. The fact that one or some of the reliefs claimed against
respondent No.1 in the concerned suit is barred by Section 34 of
2002 Act or otherwise, such objection can be raised by invoking
other remedies including under Order 6 Rule 16 of CPC at the
appropriate stage. 

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ……….. OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.31579 of 2018)

Madhav Prasad Aggarwal Vs Axis Bank Ltd. 
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.
Dated:July 01, 2019.

Print Page

Basic principles to be followed by court for striking out pleading

 Before we examine the various questions that arise in this appeal, we think it profitable to examine the scheme of Order VI, Rule 16.

16. Striking out pleadings-The Court may at any stage of the proceedings order to be struck out or amended any matter in any pleading-

(a) which may be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, or

(b) which may tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the suit, or

(c) which is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court.

It authorises the court to order that any matter in any pleading before it be struck out on the grounds specified under Clauses (a), (b) and (c). Each one of them is a distinct ground. For example, Clause (a) authorises the court to strike out the pleadings which may be (i) unnecessary, (ii) scandalous, (iii) frivolous, (iv) vexatious. If a pleading or part of it is to be struck out on the ground that it is unnecessary, the test to be applied is whether the allegation contained in that pleading is relevant and essential to grant the relief sought. Allegations which are unconnected with the relief sought in the proceeding fall under this category. Similarly, if a pleading is to be struck out on the ground that it is scandalous, the court must first record its satisfaction that the pleading is scandalous in the legal sense and then enquire whether such scandalous allegation is called for or necessary having regard to the nature of the relief sought in the proceeding. The authority of the court under Clause (c) is much wider. Obviously, such authority must be exercised with circumspection and on the basis of some rational principles.

6. The very purpose of the Rule is to ensure that parties to a legal proceeding are entitled ex debito justitia to have the case against them presented in an intelligible form so that they may not be embarrassed in meeting the case.

7. In the context of the application of Order VI Rule 16, Code of Civil Procedure to the election petition, this Court in Bhikaji Keshao Joshi and Anr. v. Brijlal Nandlal Biyani and Ors. AIR 1965 SC 610 held that a court examining an election petition may order striking out of charges which are vague.

8. In Ponnala Lakshmaiah v. Kommuri Pratap Reddy and Ors. MANU/SC/0529/2012 : (2012) 7 SCC 788, this Court considered the scope of an application under Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure. Such an application was filed by the returned candidate praying that the election petition be dismissed for non-disclosure of any cause of action. This Court opined that for the purpose of determining such an application, the averments in the election petition must be taken to be factually correct and thereafter examine whether such averments furnish the cause of action for granting the relief to the Petitioner. Such a conclusion was recorded on the basis of the law laid down in an earlier judgment of this Court4. We are of the opinion the same principles of law are applicable even while adjudicating the application under Order VI Rule 16.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 8254 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 4512 of 2015)

Decided On: 23.08.2016

Ajay Arjun Singh Vs. Sharadendu Tiwari and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Jasti Chelameswar and Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ.
Citation:(2016)15 SCC219.

Print Page