Whether it is necessary to take objection as to non-joinder of necessary party before trial court?

 On the other hand, when the Plaintiff itself persists in not impleading a necessary party in spite of objection, the consequences of non-joinder may follow. However, the said objection should be taken in the trial Court itself so that the Plaintiff may have an opportunity to rectify the defect. The said plea cannot be raised in this Court for the first time. This position has been reiterated in State of U.P. v. Ram Swarup Saroj MANU/SC/0153/2000 : (2000) 3 SCC 699. We hold that a plea as to the non-joinder of the party cannot be raised for the first time before this Court if the same was not raised before the trial Court and has not resulted in failure of justice. In the case of non-joinder, if the objection is raised for the first time before this Court, the Court can always implead the party on the application wherever necessary. However, in the case on hand, for the disposal of application filed for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11, 2nd Defendant is not a necessary party, hence he need not be impleaded. Accordingly, we reject the said objection of the Respondent herein.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 4841 of 2012.

Decided On: 03.07.2012

 The Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society  Vs. Ponniamman Educational Trust 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P. Sathasivam and Jasti Chelameswar, JJ.

Author: P. Sathasivam, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0515/2012,(2012) 8 SCC 706.

Read full Judgment here: Click here

Print Page

Whether the party against whom no relief is claimed is necessary party to the application?

 Learned senior Counsel for the Respondent vehemently contended that inasmuch as in the application for rejection of plaint, the 1st Defendant has not impleaded the 2nd Defendant, the said application is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of the 2nd Defendant, who is a necessary party.

In the case of non-joinder, if the objection is raised for the first time before this Court, the Court can always implead the party on the application wherever necessary. However, in the case on hand, for the disposal of application filed for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11, 2nd Defendant is not a necessary party, hence he need not be impleaded. Accordingly, we reject the said objection of the Respondent herein.

18. Apart from the above aspect, in the case on hand, the application for rejection of the plaint of the Appellant-1st Defendant seeks no relief against the Respondent herein-2nd Defendant. It is settled legal position that a party against whom no relief is claimed in the application is not a necessary party at all.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 4841 of 2012.

Decided On: 03.07.2012

 The Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society  Vs. Ponniamman Educational Trust 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P. Sathasivam and Jasti Chelameswar, JJ.

Author: P. Sathasivam, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0515/2012,(2012) 8 SCC 706.

Read full Judgment here: Click here

Print Page

Can the Court reject a plaint for a suit of specific performance of contract if the plaintiff has failed to mention the date of the agreement as mandated by Appendix A, Form 47 and 48 of the CPC?

 Forms 47 and 48 of Appendix A of the Code

11. Mr. K. Parasaran, learned senior Counsel by taking us through Form Nos. 47 and 48 of Appendix A of the Code which relate to suit for specific performance submitted that inasmuch as those forms are statutory in nature with regard to the claim filed for the relief for specific performance, the Court has to be satisfied that the plaint discloses a cause of action. In view of Order VII Rule 11(a) and 11(d), the Court has to satisfy that the plaint discloses a cause of action and does not appear to be barred by any law. The statutory forms require the date of agreement to be mentioned to reflect that it does not appear to be barred by limitation. In addition to the same, in a suit for specific performance, there should be an agreement by the Defendant or by a person duly authorized by a power of attorney executed in his favour by the owner.

We have already mentioned Form Nos. 47 and 48 of Appendix A and failure to mention date violates the statutory requirement and if the date is one which attracts the bar of limitation, the plaint has to conform to Order VII Rule 6 and specifically plead the ground upon which exemption from limitation is claimed. It was rightly pointed out on the side of the Appellant that in order to get over the bar of limitation all the required details have been omitted.

21. In the light of the above discussion, in view of the shortfall in the plaint averments, statutory provisions, namely, Order VII Rule 11, Rule 14(1) and Rule 14(2), Form Nos. 47 and 48 in Appendix A of the Code which are statutory in nature, we hold that the learned single Judge of the High Court has correctly concluded that in the absence of any cause of action shown as against the 1st Defendant, the suit cannot be proceeded either for specific performance or for the recovery of money advanced which according to the Plaintiff was given to the 2nd Defendant in the suit and rightly rejected the plaint as against the 1st Defendant. Unfortunately, the Division bench failed to consider all those relevant aspects and erroneously reversed the decision of the learned single Judge. We are unable to agree with the reasoning of the Division Bench of the High Court.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 4841 of 2012.

Decided On: 03.07.2012

 The Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society  Vs. Ponniamman Educational Trust 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P. Sathasivam and Jasti Chelameswar, JJ.

Author: P. Sathasivam, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0515/2012,(2012) 8 SCC 706.

Read full Judgment here: Click here

Print Page

Whether the court can reject the plaint if plaintiff has failed to produce document on which cause of action is based?

 In the case on hand, the Plaintiff-Respondent to get a decree for specific performance has to prove that there is a subsisting agreement in his favour and the second Defendant has the necessary authority under the power of attorney. Order VII Rule 14 mandates that the Plaintiff has to produce the documents on which the cause of action is based, therefore, he has to produce the power of attorney when the plaint is presented by him and if he is not in possession of the same, he has to state as to in whose possession it is. In the case on hand, only the agreement between the Plaintiff and the second Defendant has been filed along with the plaint under Order VII Rule 14(1). As rightly pointed out by the learned senior Counsel for the Appellant, if he is not in possession of the power of attorney, it being a registered document, he should have filed a registration copy of the same. There is no such explanation even for not filing the registration copy of the power of attorney. Under Order VII Rule 14(2) instead of explaining in whose custody the power of attorney is, the Plaintiff has simply stated 'Nil'. It clearly shows non-compliance of Order VII Rule 14(2). {Para 12}

13. In the light of the controversy, we have gone through all the averments in the plaint. In paragraph 4 of the plaint, it is alleged that the 2nd Defendant as agreement holder of the 1st Defendant and also as the registered power of attorney holder of the 1st Defendant executed the agreement of sale. In spite of our best efforts, we could not find any particulars showing as to the documents which are referred to as "agreement holder". We are satisfied that neither the documents were filed along with the plaint nor the terms thereof have been set out in the plaint. The abovementioned two documents were to be treated as part of the plaint as being the part of the cause of action. It is settled law that where a document is sued upon and its terms are not set out in the plaint but referred to in the plaint, the said document gets incorporated by reference in the plaint.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 4841 of 2012.

Decided On: 03.07.2012

 The Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society  Vs. Ponniamman Educational Trust 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P. Sathasivam and Jasti Chelameswar, JJ.

Author: P. Sathasivam, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0515/2012,(2012) 8 SCC 706

Print Page

Whether the court must consider document filed along with plaint for deciding application for rejection of plaint?

12.2 The power conferred on the court to terminate a civil action is, however, a drastic one, and the conditions enumerated in Order VII Rule 11 are required to be strictly adhered to.

12.3 Under Order VII Rule 11, a duty is cast on the Court to determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action by scrutinizing the averments in the plaint2, read in conjunction with the documents relied upon, or whether the suit is barred by any law.

12.4 Order VII Rule 14(1) provides for production of documents, on which the Plaintiff places reliance in his suit, which reads as under:

Order 7 Rule 14: Production of document on which Plaintiff sues or relies.-

(1) Where a Plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint.

(2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the Plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is.

(3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the Plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.

(4) Nothing in this Rule shall apply to document produced for the cross examination of the Plaintiff's witnesses, or, handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.

Having regard to Order VII Rule 14 Code of Civil Procedure, the documents filed alongwith the plaint, are required to be taken into consideration for deciding the application Under Order VII Rule 11(a). When a document referred to in the plaint, forms the basis of the plaint, it should be treated as a part of the plaint.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 9519 of 2019 

Decided On: 09.07.2020

Dahiben Vs.  Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (D) thr. L.Rs. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

L. Nageswara Rao and Indu Malhotra, JJ.

Author: Indu Malhotra, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0508/2020, (2020) 7 SCC 366

Print Page

What are provisions regarding production of documents in CPC?

 O 7 R 14 of CPC.

14. Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies.—(1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint.

(2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is.

[(3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.

(4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, or, handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.]

Print Page