Whether the Civil court has jurisdiction to try suit relating to Maharashtra Gunthewari Development (Regulation, Upgradation and Control) Act, 2001?

The requirement of producing documentary proof of ownership or lawful possession of the land contained in clause (a) below sub-section (2) of section 4, is merely for the purposes of recording subjective satisfaction of the authority competent to grant regularization under section 3 of the said Act. There is no finality attached, as contemplated by section 18 of the said Act, to the question of title or of the possession gone into by the competent authority under section 3 or 4 of the said Act. The plenary jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide the question of title and possession therefore, remains intact, and it is open for the Civil Court to find out whether, before granting of regularization, the property was owned and/or possessed by a person other than one at whose instance the regularization was granted under section 3 of the said Act. Such a suit cannot, therefore, be held to be barred under section 18 of the said Act. In the result, the petition is dismissed, holding that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain, try and decide a suit based on title and possession is not barred under section 18 of the Maharashtra Gunthewari Development (Regulation, Upgradation and Control) Act, 2001. {Para 9}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

S.A. No. 30 of 2016

Decided On: 26.08.2016

Sunderlal Vs. Nagpur Improvement Trust and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.K. Deshpande, J.

Citation:  MANU/MH/3000/2016,2017(4) ALLMR 378.

Print Page

Whether partial rejection of plaint is permissible?

There is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure for the rejection of a plaint in part, and the note recorded by the trial Court does not, therefore, amount to the rejection of the plaint as contemplated in the Code of Civil Procedure.

7. Similarly, in Bansi Lal v. Som Parkash, MANU/PH/0004/1952 : A.I.R. 1952 Punjab 38 at 39, the High Court held:

But the real question which arises in this appeal is whether there can be a partial rejection of the plaint. Mr. Chiranjiva Lal Aggarwala submits that a plaint can either be rejected as a whole or not at all, and he has relied on a statement of the law given in Mulla's Code of Civil Procedure at page 612 where it is stated: "This Rule (Order 7, Rule 11) does not justify the rejection of any particular portion of a plaint." In support of this statement the learned author has relied on 'Raghubans Puri v. Jyotis Swarupa', MANU/UP/0054/1907 : 29 All 325, 'Appa Rao v. Secretary of State', 54 Mad 416, and 'Maqsud Ahmad v. Mathra Datt & Co.' MANU/LA/0042/1936 : AIR 1936 Lah 1021. In reply to this argument Mr. Puri has submitted that it is really five suits which had all been combined in one and therefore in this particular case the rejection of a part was nothing more than rejection of three plaints. But the suit was brought on one plaint and not five suits were brought. The law does not change merely because the Plaintiff chooses in one suit to combine several causes of action against several Defendants which the law allows him. It still remains one plaint and therefore rejection of the plaint must be as a whole and not as to a part. I am therefore of the opinion that the learned Senior Subordinate Judge was in error in upholding the rejection as to a part and setting aside the rejection in regard to the other part. This appeal which I am treating as a petition for revision must therefore be allowed and the Rule made absolute, and I order accordingly.

Under Order VII Rule 11. In all such cases, if the plaint survives against certain Defendants and/or properties, Order VII Rule 11 will have no application at all, and the suit as a whole must then proceed to trial.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 10802 of 2017 

Decided On: 21.08.2017

 Sejal Glass Ltd. Vs. Navilan Merchants Pvt. Ltd.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Rohinton Fali Nariman and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, JJ.

Citation:(2018) 11 SCC 780

Print Page

Whether partial rejection of plaint is permissible?

 Granted that as a matter of principle, a plaint can be rejected against some of the defendants, it is important to consider in what circumstances it can be so rejected. Whether under Order 7 Rule 11(a) or under Order 7 Rule 11(d), non-disclosure of cause of action or legal bar, as the case may be, must be in respect of the plaint or the suit as a whole. If the plaint as a whole and read in the light of all its averments does not disclose any cause of action against a particular defendant, it may well be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(a). So also, if the suit as a whole appears from the statements in the plaint to be barred by any law against any particular defendant, the plaint may be rejected. In either of these cases, the rejection must be of the whole of the plaint or the suit, as the case may be. There is no manner of doubt that the plaint cannot be rejected partially on the ground that that part does not disclose any cause of action or that part of the suit is barred by law against any defendant. In other words, it is not permissible to split the cause of action brought before the court by a plaintiff and based on such splitting, reject the plaint partially.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Notice of Motion No. 7 of 2017 in Suit No. 8 of 2017, Notice of Motion No. 1206 of 2017 in Suit No. 8 of 2017, 

Decided On: 26.07.2017

Padma Ashok Bhatt and Ors. Vs. Orbit Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.C. Gupte, J.

Citation: 2017(6) MHLJ 102

Print Page

Whether partial rejection of plaint is permissible?

It is settled law that the plaint as a whole alone can be rejected Under Order VII Rule 11. In Maqsud Ahmad v. Mathra Datt & Co., MANU/LA/0042/1936 : A.I.R. 1936 Lahore 1021 at 1022, the High Court held that a note recorded by the trial Court did not amount to a rejection of the plaint as a whole, as contemplated by the Code of Civil Procedure, and, therefore, rejected a revision petition in the following terms:

There is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure for the rejection of a plaint in part, and the note recorded by the trial Court does not, therefore, amount to the rejection of the plaint as contemplated in the Code of Civil Procedure.

7. Similarly, in Bansi Lal v. Som Parkash, MANU/PH/0004/1952 : A.I.R. 1952 Punjab 38 at 39, the High Court held:

But the real question which arises in this appeal is whether there can be a partial rejection of the plaint. Mr. Chiranjiva Lal Aggarwala submits that a plaint can either be rejected as a whole or not at all, and he has relied on a statement of the law given in Mulla's Code of Civil Procedure at page 612 where it is stated: "This Rule (Order 7, Rule 11) does not justify the rejection of any particular portion of a plaint." In support of this statement the learned author has relied on 'Raghubans Puri v. Jyotis Swarupa', MANU/UP/0054/1907 : 29 All 325, 'Appa Rao v. Secretary of State', 54 Mad 416, and 'Maqsud Ahmad v. Mathra Datt & Co.' MANU/LA/0042/1936 : AIR 1936 Lah 1021. In reply to this argument Mr. Puri has submitted that it is really five suits which had all been combined in one and therefore in this particular case the rejection of a part was nothing more than rejection of three plaints. But the suit was brought on one plaint and not five suits were brought. The law does not change merely because the Plaintiff chooses in one suit to combine several causes of action against several Defendants which the law allows him. It still remains one plaint and therefore rejection of the plaint must be as a whole and not as to a part. I am therefore of the opinion that the learned Senior Subordinate Judge was in error in upholding the rejection as to a part and setting aside the rejection in regard to the other part. This appeal which I am treating as a petition for revision must therefore be allowed and the Rule made absolute, and I order accordingly.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 10802 of 2017 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 5862 of 2017), 

Decided On: 21.08.2017

Sejal Glass Ltd. Vs. Navilan Merchants Pvt. Ltd.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Rohinton Fali Nariman and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, JJ.

Citation: AIR 2017 SC 4477.

Print Page

Whether there can be partial rejection of plaint?

 On the other hand, Rule 11 of Order VII enjoins the Court to reject the plaint where it does not disclose a cause of action. There is no question of striking out any portion of the pleading under this rule. The application filed by the first respondent in O.A. No. 36/97 is on the footing that the averments in the election petition did not contain the material facts giving rise to a triable issue or disclosing a cause of action. Laying stress upon the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11 (a), learned senior counsel for the first respondent took us through the entire election petition and submitted that the averments therein do not disclose a cause of action. On a reading of the petition, we do not find it possible to agree with him. The election petition as such does disclose a cause of action which if unrebutted could void the election and the provisions of O.VII R.11(a) C.P.C. can not therefore be invoked in this case. There is no merit in the contention that some of the allegations are bereft of material facts and as such do not disclose a cause of action. It is elementary that under O.VII R.11 (a) C.P.C., the Court can not dissect the pleading into several parts and consider whether each one of them discloses a cause of action. Under the rule, there can not be a partial rejection of the plaint or petition.

Supreme Court of India

D. Ramachandran vs R.V. Janakiraman & Ors on 11 March, 1999

Bench: M.Srinivasan, R.P.Sethi

Citation:AIR 1999 SC 1128:1999(3) SCC 267

Print Page

Whether power of attorney has to be strictly construed?

It is  settled  that
a power of attorney has to be strictly construed.   In  order  to  agree  to
sell or effect a sale  by  a  power  of  attorney,  the  power  should  also
expressly authorize the power to agent to execute  the  sale  agreement/sale
deed i.e., (a) to present the document before  the  Registrar;  and  (b)  to
admit execution of the document before the  Registrar.  
 REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                              CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4841 OF 2012


 The Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable
Society Vs  M/s Ponniamman Educational

  Citation 2012(6) MHLJ 738 SC
P. Sathasivam, J.

Print Page