Supreme Court: Written Statement Must Have Para-Wise Reply To Plaint; Allegations Deemed To Be Admitted Unless Specifically Denied

 In the absence of para-wise reply to the plaint, it becomes a roving inquiry for the Court to find out as to which line in some paragraph in the plaint is either admitted or denied in the written statement filed, as there is no specific admission or denial with reference to the allegation in different paras.{Para 15}

15.1 Order VIII Rules 3 and 5 CPC clearly provides for specific

admission and denial of the pleadings in the plaint. A general or evasive denial is not treated as sufficient. Proviso to Order VIII Rule 5 CPC provides that even the admitted facts may not be treated to be admitted, still in its discretion the Court may require those facts to be proved. This is an exception to the general rule. General rule is that the facts admitted, are not required to be proved.

15.2 The requirement of Order VIII Rules 3 and 5 CPC are specific admission and denial of the pleadings in the plaint. The same would necessarily mean dealing with the allegations in the plaint para-wise. In the absence thereof, the respondent can always try to read one line from one paragraph and another from different paragraph in the written statement to make out his case of denial of the allegations in the plaint resulting in utter confusion.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8935 OF 2011

THANGAM AND ANOTHER Vs NAVAMANI AMMAL 

Rajesh Bindal, J.

Dated: March 04, 2024.

Citation:  2024 INSC 164.

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

Can say given by defendant's Advocate on the reverse side of the plaint be treated as a written statement of the defendant?

  The respondent Corporation's advocate appears to

have filed say under his own signature on reverse side of

page Nos. 3 and 4 of the plaint. This novel way of filing of

written statement cannot be said to be pleadings of the party

because they are neither signed by the representative of the

Corporation nor there is verification of the same. Though

the suit is contested, there is no written statement as

required by the law. {Para 3}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

SECOND APPEAL NO. 427 OF 2005

Ashabai Murlidhar Karpe Vs The Municipal Corporation of Aurangabad, 

CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J.

DATED : 30.06.2009

Print Page

Whether court should also see documents filed along with plaint while deciding application for rejection of plaint?

Moreover while considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the court can only look at the averments in the plaint and the accompanying documents. In Tilak Raj Bhagat vs. Ranjit Kaur, MANU/DE/3345/2012 : 2012 VAD (Delhi) 186 this court held as follows:-

"5. It may be worthwhile to mention here that while considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the Court has to look at the averments made in the plaint by taking the same as correct on its face value as also the documents filed in support thereof. Neither defence of the defendant nor averments made in the application have to be given any weightage. Plaint has to be read as a whole together with the documents filed by the plaintiff."

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

C.R.P. 22/2017

Decided On: 06.07.2018

Suresh Nanda  Vs.   Devika Mehta and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Jayant Nath, J.

Print Page

Whether court can travel beyond statements in plaint while deciding application for rejection of plaint?

I have already held that while exercising jurisdiction under the provision of Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code, Court cannot travel beyond the statements in the plaint and has to decide the question pertaining to rejection of the plaint only within the four corners of the plaint. It cannot step out of the plaint and can certainly not enter into the merits of the case. However, it is seen from the order dated 26.11.1982 passed below Exhibit-1 by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur that he has decided the question of the suit being barred by law or otherwise on merits of the case. Learned Civil Judge has observed that the plaintiff herself is an educated English knowing lady who is the widow of Bahmanshaw Byramji and being possessed of sufficient means to have best and independent legal advice in the situation, could not have been defrauded in the proceedings under Section 17 and the decree that followed the proceedings. These observations clearly indicate that the learned Civil Judge did not restrict himself to only what was stated in the plaint, but went beyond that and considered something that was not the part of the plaint. Accordingly, he held that the decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 230 of 1975 could not be said to be the result of fraud played on plaintiff and, therefore, it operated as a res judicata. This was in excess of the power available under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and thus not permissible under the law. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Second Appeal No. 207 of 1994

Decided On: 08.01.2014

 Sushilabai Vs. Kamlarukh and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.B. Shukre, J.

Citation: 2014(2) ALLMR 629

Print Page

Whether certified copy of plaint is public document?

 The certified copy of the plaint is not a public document. Hence, it requires proof. For proving such document, the original plaint should have been called in the court. That is not done, hence the certified copy of the plaint could not be said to be proved at all.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Second Appeal No. 67 of 1996

Decided On: 29.01.2008

 Shamlata  Vs. Vishweshwar Tukaram Giripunje and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges: 

C.L. Pangarkar, J.

Citation: AIR 2008 Bom 155

Print Page

Whether court should grant mesne profit if plaintiff has not claimed it in plaint?

It was however pointed out by Shri S.P. Sinha that the High Court erred in awarding to the plaintiffs mesne profits even though there was no demand for the same in the plaint. The learned Solicitor General appearing for the plaintiffs conceded that there was no demand for mesne profits as such but urged that the claim for mesne profits would be included within the expression "awarding possession and occupation of the property aforesaid together with all the rights appertaining thereto." We are afraid that the claim for mesne profits cannot be included within this expression and the High Court was in error in awarding to the plaintiffs mesne profits though they had not been claimed in the plaint. The provision in regard to the mesne profits will therefore have to be deleted from the decree.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 583 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 18522 of 2004)

Decided On: 22.01.2008

 Ganapati Madhav Sawant  Vs. Dattur Madhav Sawant

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dr. Arijit Pasayat and P. Sathasivam, JJ.

Citation:  2008(3) S.C.C. 183.

Print Page

Whether Cause title of plaint can be amended by office of court?

It is seen therefrom that when the defendant dies and the right to sue survives the Court. on an application made in that behalf. shall cause the legal representative of the deceased defendant to be made a Party and shall proceed with the quit. When once the order is made under the above provision, the said order should be given effect to, by recording the necessary names in the cause title of the Pleadings. The Office of the Court might do it either by the, party who obtained the order or. All that is required to be done is to effect he necessary changes in the particulars of the Plaint in substituting the names of the heirs of the deceased. When such change is made or recorded. it cannot be considered, as an amendment of the plaint within the meaning and scope of 0. VI. R.17. Substitution of the legal representatives, of the deceased is made to give effect to the order made by the Court under Order XXII. Rule 3 or 4. Order VI, Rule 17 or order VI, Rule 18 of the Civil P. C., has no application to such situation.

6. My View finds support from the observation in the decision of the Bombay High Court in Aloha Vaisurbhai v. Bhutan Brava. AIR 1937 Born 401. wherein it was observed:

"It was no Part of the appellant's duty to take the necessary steps to carry out the Court's order for the substitution of the names of the heirs of the deceased respondents who were Property served with notices in order to correct the record of the Court in terms of its order. That was a ministerial function, which the Courts establishment was charged to perform. If it was not performed or neglected. the fault would not lie with the appellants."

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

Civil Revn. Petn. No. 2554 of 1974

Decided On: 22.07.1975

 Kariyappa  Vs.  Patel Rudrappa and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.

Citation : AIR 1976 Kant 29

Print Page

Whether appellate court can grant relief under O 41 R 33 of CPC even if it is not claimed in plaint?

While considering the scope of the powers of the appellate Court under provisions of Order-XLI, Rule 33 of the Code, the Constitution Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court in Panna Lal [supra] observed that the appellate Court while denying relief to the appellant could grant relief to the respondent as "the case may require." In Mahant Dhangir [supra], it was held that the provisions of Order-XLI, Rule 22 and Rule 33 of the Code were not mutually exclusive. Rule 33 was liberal enough and the only requirements for exercise of such discretion were that the parties before the lower Court should be there before the appellate Court and the question raised must arise properly out of the judgment of the lower Court.

In Chaya and others v. Bapusaheb and others [MANU/SC/0616/1994 : (1994) 2 SCC 41], it was observed by the Honourable Supreme Court in paragraph 14 of its decision as under:-

"14. This provision is based on a salutary principle that the appellate court should have the power to do complete justice between the parties. The object of the rule is also to avoid contradictory and inconsistent decisions on the same questions in the same suits. For this purpose, the rule confers a wide discretionary power on the appellate court to pass such decree or order as ought to have been passed or as the nature of the case may require, notwithstanding the fact that the appeal is only with regard to a part of the decree or that the party in whose favour the power is proposed to be exercised has not filed any appeal or cross- objection. While it is true that since the power is derogative of the general principle that a party cannot avoid the effect of a decree against him without filing an appeal or cross-objection and, therefore, the power has to be exercised with care and caution, it is also true that in an appropriate case, the appellate court should not hesitate to exercise the discretion conferred by the said rule."

14. From aforesaid, it can be seen that the appellate Court is vested with wide powers to enable it to do complete justice between the parties so as to pass such decree or order as the case may require even in absence of any appeal or cross-appeal. Though it was urged on behalf of the appellants that only such relief that was prayed for in the plaint could be granted in exercise of such powers, I am not in a position to accept said submission. The exercise of these wide powers is not trammeled by the absence of any prayer being made in the plaint. This exercise of power is, however, circumscribed for being exercised only in rare cases and when the facts of such case demand its exercise.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Second Appeal No. 280 of 2016

Decided On: 13.07.2017

 Sattarsha Dibarsha  Vs.  Ajizabi Dilbarsha and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.S. Chandurkar, J.

Print Page

Whether averments made in the plaint can be presumed to be correct while deciding application for rejection of plaint?

 It is also settled law that while considering the question of whether a plaint deserves to be rejected as being barred by limitation, the averments made in the plaint in the entirety need to be looked at, presuming them to be correct. It has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Liverpool & London S.P. & I Association Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I and another reported in MANU/SC/0951/2003 : (2004) 9 SCC 512, that documents produced along with the plaint can be looked into while considering a question of rejection of plaint raised on behalf of the defendant.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Civil Revision Application No. 64 of 2015

Decided On: 22.03.2018

Rajendra  Vs  Harbanssingh and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Manish Pitale, J.

Citation: 2018(6) MHLJ 78

Print Page

What are necessary conditions for grant of permission for production of document by plaintiff if it was not annexed with plaint?

 The Court also says that nothing prevents the Court in its discretion to grant leave subsequent to the documents being produced before the Court even though such documents were not annexed to plaint or included in the list annexed to the plaint and no pedantic approach should be adopted. At the same time, this Court also says it would depend on the facts of each case and the order of the Court in that regard will be speaking and reasoned order. The Court cannot give a speaking and reasoned order unless an application is made for leave to produce such documents that were not presented with the plaint or entered in the list annexed to the plaint. Therefore, the plaintiff will have to apply explaining as to why these documents were not annexed to the plaint or included in the list of documents and why leave should be granted. It is not for the defendants, as submitted by Mr. Rajasekhar, to take out an application explaining what prejudice will be caused if the document is accepted in evidence.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Admiralty Suit No. 33 of 2010

Decided On: 30.10.2014

Coromandel International Ltd. Vs. M.V. Glory I

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

K.R. Shriram, J.

Citation: 2015(1) ALLMR 619

Print Page

Guidelines of Bombay High court about proper scrutiny of suit by civil judge

 I
deem it appropriate to direct the learned Registrar (Judicial) of
this Court to place a copy of this order before each learned
Principal District Judge in this State so as to bring to the notice
of each Judicial Officer under the respective Judicial district that
a proper scrutiny of the suit shall be performed by the concerned
office of the Courts and in the event of a sketch map being
required to be annexed to the plaints, depending upon the cause
of action in due deference to Order VII Rule 3 of the CPC, the
trial Court shall place such suits in objection category and shall
not proceed with the said suits, until there is a proper

compliance of Order VII Rule 3 of the CPC to avoid further
complications as are visible in the judgments cited in this
proceeding.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1849 OF 2018

DATTATRAYA KASHINATH MANDEKAR Vs CHANGDEO DAGDU KHULE AND OTHERS

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: February 15 2018
Citation: 2018(4) MHLJ 584

Print Page

Whether rent court has jurisdiction to entertain suit between landlord and tenant relating to land encroached by tenant?

 It is significant that the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain a suit is required to be gathered from the averments as made in the plaint and not from the defence as would be taken in the written statement as filed by the defendant. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is a tenant of the respondent in regard to the open plot admeasuring 30 sq.ft x 20 sq.ft and that it was a clear assertion of the respondent in the plaint that the petitioner had encroached upon the land admeasuring 200 sq.ft. In the written statement as filed by the petitioner resisting this allegation as made in para 1B of the plaint, the petitioner denied the respondent's allegations. The contention of the respondent was that in fact the petitioner was a tenant of an area admeasuring 1538 sq.ft since last 50 years and not of an area of 30 sq.ft x 20 ft. as alleged by the respondent. This assertion was replied in para 3 of the written statement, which shows that there was a clear dispute between the tenant-respondent and petitioner (landlord and tenant) in regard to the area of the tenanted premises. Section 28(1) of the Bombay Rent Act confers a jurisdiction on the Court to entertain and try any suit or a proceeding between a landlord and a tenant relating to recovery of possession of any premises to which any of the provisions of para II of the Act (Section 6 to section 31) applies and to decide any application under the Act or to deal with any claim or question arising under the Act or any of its provisions and that subject to the provisions of section 2, no court shall have the jurisdiction to entertain such a suit proceedings or application or deal with such a claim or question. In view of this clear mandate of section 28, which would permit the Court to deal with "any claim or question arising under the Bombay Rent Act between a landlord and a tenant, it cannot be said that in the facts in hand, the Court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the respondent's suit even to try the issue of encroachment to the tenanted premises. In any event, the petitioner had denied the case of encroachment and in fact the petitioner claimed tenancy if an area admeasuring 1538 sq.ft. This itself clearly shows that under section 28 the trial Court was within its jurisdiction under section 28(1) to entertain the respondent's suit in question.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 934 of 1994

Decided On: 28.11.2017

Laxmibai Ganpati Bhingare Vs. Shivaji Dnyani Salunkhe

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

G.S. Kulkarni, J.

Citation: 2018(4) MHLJ 190

Print Page

Whether it is necessary to make pleading regarding comparative hardship in plaint?

The High Court was also in error in assuming that the landlord in a suit for eviction on the ground of bona fide personal requirement is supposed to have pleaded his own comparative hardship in the plaint itself. Section 13(2) comes into play at the stage when the court is satisfied that the ground contained in Clause (g) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act has been made out. It is at that stage that the court has to examine the question of comparative hardship. It was thus not necessary to plead in the plaint itself. Often the parties at the stage of recording of evidence of bona fide personal requirement also lead evidence as to the comparative hardship of the landlord or the tenant. But such averments are not required to be pleaded in the plaint itself to give cause of action to the landlord to enable him to file a suit for eviction of the tenant on the ground of his bona fide personal requirement.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 998 of 1976

Decided On: 18.02.1993

Hiralal Moolchand Doshi Vs. Barot Raman Lal Ranchhoddas (Dead) by L.Rs.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

N.M. Kasliwal and Yogeshwar Dayal, JJ.

Citation: AIR 1993 SC 1449

Print Page

Basic concepts of CPC Part 3 definitions

Order S 2(14) of CPC

An order has been defined as the formal expression of any decision of a civil court which is not a decree.

Difference between decree and order.

Both a decree and an order are adjudication by a civil court and both relate to matters in controversy. However the following are six points of distinction between the two:

1) A decree is an adjudication which conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to any or all matters in controversy;an order on the other hand may or may not finally determine the rights of parties.

2) A decree can only originate from a suit that is proceeding commenced by a plaint. An order may originate from a suit as well as from any other proceeding commenced by an application.

3)Except in certain suits where two decrees(one preliminary and the other final) are passed, in every suit there is only one decree, whereas many orders can be passed in a single suit.

4) A first appeal always lies from a decree. However no appeal lies from an order unless it is appealable order.

5) While appealability is the rule and non-appealability is the exception in the case of a decree,in the case of an order, it is just the reverse.

6) While in the case of a decree, an aggrieved person has the right to second appeal,in an appealable order,he does not have such a right.

Print Page

When it can be held that plaint was not signed and verified by duly authorized person?

The present suit is filed by the State of Haryana and on the title of the suit it has been mentioned "State of Haryana through Director Industries, Haryana", without mentioning the name of the said Director and the plaint shows that one Dhanendra Kumar has signed the plaint and he has given his designation as Director of Industries, State of Haryana below, his signature. The defendant has raised a specific contention in the plaint that the plaint is not signed and verified by a duly authorised person of the plaintiff. On behalf of the plaintiff one Mr. Prem Nath Wadhwa has entered the witness box. He has deposed that he is working as an Assistant in the Industries Department. He identified the signatures of Dhanendra Kumar and he has also deposed that he was Director of Industries of the State of Haryana. But he does not claim in his examination-in-chief that the Government of Haryana had authorised Shri Dhanendra Kumar, the Director of Industries, to file the present suit and to sign the present suit on behalf of the State of Haryana. No government resolution or any document is produced to show that the Director of Industries Shri Dhanendra Kumar was authorised by the State of Haryana to file the present suit. What this witness is doing is only identifying and proving the signature of Dhanendra Kumar but he nowhere makes a claim that Dhanendra Kumar was authorised by the State of Haryana to sign the plaint on behalf of the State of Haryana. In the cross-examination this witness has deposed as under:

" The plaint and power of attorney were not signed by Dhanendra Kumar in my presence. I did not see any document to say that Dhanendra Kumar was authorised to file this suit and to sign the plaint on behalf of the plaintiff or to engage a counsel on behalf of the plaintiff in the present suit."

If the above admission of the said witness coupled with the fact that he does not make a claim in his examination-in-chief that Dhanendra Kumar was authorised by the State of Haryana to sign and verify the suit and in the absence of production of any documents how that the State of Haryana had authorized the Director of Industries to file the present suit, it is not possible to hold that the plaint has been signed and filed by duly authorised agent of the State of Haryana. Therefore, in these circumstances, Issue No. 1 will have to be answered in the negative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

S. No. 768 of 1980

Decided On: 15.09.1995

State of Haryana Vs.  Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.D. Pandit, J.

Citation: AIR 1996 Delhi 198

Print Page

Whether court can grant relief against particular defendant if it is not claimed in plaint?

 It is clear that in the amended plaint the prayer is against the Defendant, therefore, the prayer is only against Defendant No. 1 and not against Defendant No. 2. In a case where prayer is not made against a particular Defendant, no relief possibly can be granted against him. Reference in this connection can be made to the provisions of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure. In this connection, Order VII, Rule 5 is relevant and is set out below:

5. Defendant's interest and liability to be shown. - The plaint shall show that the Defendant is or claims to be interested in subject-matter, and that he is liable to be called upon to answer the Plaintiff's demand.

19. Order VII, Rule 7 of Code of Civil Procedure is also relevant and which is also set out below:

7. Relief to be specifically stated.-Every plaint shall state specifically the relief which the Plaintiff claims either simply or in the alternative, and it shall not be necessary to ask for general or other relief which may always be given as the Court may think just to the same extent as if it had been asked for. And the same rule shall apply to any relief claimed by the Defendant in his written statement.

20. In Sheikh Abdul Kayum and Ors. v. Mulla Alibhai and Ors. MANU/SC/0385/1962 : AIR 1963 SC 309 it has been held by this Court that it does not lie within the jurisdiction of a Court to grant relief against Defendant against whom no reliefs have been claimed [See paragraph 13, page 313 of the report].

21. Same propositions have been reiterated recently by a judgment of this Court in Scotts Engineering, Bangalore v. Rajesh P. Surana and Ors. MANU/SC/7195/2008 : (2008) 4 SCC 256. In paragraph 10 at page 258 of the report this Court found that even after the Appellant was arrayed as Defendant 6, the Plaintiff did not care to amend the plaint except making the Appellant as Defendant 6. No relief was claimed against Defendant 6. If we follow the said principle in the facts of this case we have to hold that no relief having been claimed against Defendant 2, who is the predecessor-in-title of the present Appellant, no relief can be granted against the present Appellant.

22. The objection of the Respondent that such point is taken only before this Court and not at an earlier stage of the proceeding cannot be countenanced since this point goes to the root of the matter and for consideration of this point no further investigation in the facts of the case is necessary. This point actually appears from the admitted records of the case and this point is based on the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.

23. In this connection principles which have been laid down by Lord Sumner in Surajmull Nagoremull v. Triton Insurance Co. Ltd. 52 IA 126, are very pertinent. The learned Law Lord summarized the proposition so lucidly that we should do nothing more than quote it:

...No court can enforce as valid that which competent enactments have declared shall not be valid, nor is obedience to such an enactment a thing from which a court can be dispensed by the consent of the parties, or by a failure to plead or to argue the point at the outset.

24. The aforesaid propositions have been quoted with approval by this Court in Badri Prasad and Ors. v. Nagarmal and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0009/1958 : AIR 1959 SC 559 at page 562.

25. Similar views have been expressed by this Court again in Tarinikamal Pandit and Ors. v. Perfulla Kumar Chatterjee (dead) by L.Rs. MANU/SC/0587/1979 : AIR 1979 SC 1165. After considering several decisions, including the one rendered in Badri Prasad (supra) this Court held as follows:

...As the point raised is a pure question of law not involving any investigation of the facts, we permitted the learned Counsel to raise the question.... (para 15 at page 1172)

26. In our view this point is sufficient to hold that the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court is not sustainable in law.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 6409 of 2002

Decided On: 21.04.2011

 Dr. Shehla Burney and Ors. Vs. Syed Ali Mossa Raza (Dead) by L.Rs. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

G.S. Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly, JJ.

Print Page

Whether court can look in to documents filed along with plaint while deciding application for rejection of plaint?

The aforesaid provisions have been subject matter of discussion by the Indian Courts in a number of cases. Analogous provisions have also been examined by Courts in England. In India under Order 7, Rule 11 the plaint can be rejected where it does not disclose a cause of action or where the suit appears from the statement made in the plaint to be barred by any law. For the purpose of deciding that the plaint "does not disclose a cause of action", the Courts generally look only at the plaint. However, there is a rider to this rule, that when the plaint is based on a document, the same can also be looked into. This proposition has been recognised by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Bhagwan Das v. Goswami Brijesh Kumarji and others, MANU/RH/0002/1983 of the aforesaid judgment, it is observed as follows :---

"7. Learned Counsel for the opposite party may be right in urging that if the plaint is based on a document, then such a document may be considered as forming part of the plaint itself and the document can also be looked into, while considering the averments of the plaint, for the purpose of deciding the question that the plaint discloses a cause of action or not. But it has to be remembered that the averments made in the plaint as well as the contents of the document which may constitute part of the plaint, can be looked into on the face value thereof and the question relating to the validity or invalidity of the document cannot be considered at the stage of deciding an application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C."

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Notice of Motion No. 1272, 1638 and 1663 of 1999 in Suit No. 2352 of 1999

Decided On: 10.09.1999

SNP Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. & others  Vs. World Tanker Carrier Corporation & another

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.S. Nijjar, J.

Citation: 2000 (2) Mh.L.J. 570 

Print Page

Whether documents filed along with plaint can be treated as part of plaint?

Order 7, Rule 11, of the Civil Procedure Code provides that, where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law, the plaint may be rejected and the contention of the learned Counsel is that the learned District Munsif ought to have held on the pleadings that there was a doubt about the actual date on which the promissory note was executed and should have relegated the question of limitation to be decided during the trial and that he was wrong in looking into the promissory note which admittedly bears only the Tamil date 27th Adi, Krodhi at that stage. The question whether the recitals made in the promissory note, which was admittedly filed by the petitioner along with the plaint, should be treated as part of the statement in the plaint, is not free from difficulty ; and it-does not appear that there is any direct decision on this point. One thing, however, is clear and it is that a document which is referred to in, forms the basis of and is 'filed along with the plaint should be treated as part of the plaint. It must be borne in mind that Order 7, Rule 14 (1) stipulates that the plaintiff shall produce in Court the document upon which he sues, when the plaint is presented, and shall at the same time deliver the document or a copy thereof to be filed with the plaint. In my view, it would be artificial to divorce the said document from the plaint and to contend that the said document which is admittedly filed along with and forms the basis of the plaint should not be looked into by the Court and should not be regarded as part of the plaint while checking the plaint before filing the suit. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

Decided On: 03.03.1969

 Nithayya Thevar Vs. Subramanian Ambalakarar

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Ganesan, J.

Citation:1970(1) MLJ 400.

Print Page

Whether plaint can be rejected if allegations in plaint are at variance with recitals in document filed along with plaint?

Order 7, Rule 11, of the Civil Procedure Code provides that, where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law, the plaint may be rejected and the contention of the learned Counsel is that the learned District Munsif ought to have held on the pleadings that there was a doubt about the actual date on which the promissory note was executed and should have relegated the question of limitation to be decided during the trial and that he was wrong in looking into the promissory note which admittedly bears only the Tamil date 27th Adi, Krodhi at that stage. The question whether the recitals made in the promissory note, which was admittedly filed by the petitioner along with the plaint, should be treated as part of the statement in the plaint, is not free from difficulty ; and it-does not appear that there is any direct decision on this point. One thing, however, is clear and it is that a document which is referred to in, forms the basis of and is 'filed along with the plaint should be treated as part of the plaint. It must be borne in mind that Order 7, Rule 14 (1) stipulates that the plaintiff shall produce in Court the document upon which he sues, when the plaint is presented, and shall at the same time deliver the document or a copy thereof to be filed with the plaint. In my view, it would be artificial to divorce the said document from the plaint and to contend that the said document which is admittedly filed along with and forms the basis of the plaint should not be looked into by the Court and should not be regarded as part of the plaint while checking the plaint before filing the suit. Where the allegations in the plaint are at variance with the material recitals in the document which form the basis of the suit, it would be open to the Court to return the plaint for rectification; and in a case of this kind it appears to me clear that the Court would be perfectly justified in treating the recitals in such documents as part of the statement in the plaint for purposes of rejection under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code.

4. In this particular instance, the suit filed on 14th August, 1967 on the basis of the suit promissory note which admittedly bears only the Tamil date 27th Adi, Krodhi (corresponding to nth August, 1964) is clearly barred by time; and the only question for consideration is whether the lower Court was right in basing its rejection on the suit promissory note when the plaint has given two different dates and when the suit is not barred if the English date given in the plaint is acted upon. It is plain that a fraud is sought to be played by the plaintiff on the Court by deliberately giving the wrong English date in the plaint; and it appears to me clear that he should not be permitted to turn round and blame the Court for not adhering to Order 7, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code, strictly to the letter. In cases of this kind it is perfectly open to the Court to rely upon the date given in the document which is admittedly produced along with the plaint and referred to in the schedule, especially when the said date is also referred to in the body of the plaint along with the wrong date. There is absolutely no material to warrant interference in version. The rejection of the plaint is proper.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

Decided On: 03.03.1969

 Nithayya Thevar Vs. Subramanian Ambalakarar

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Ganesan, J.

Citation:1970(1) MLJ 400.

Print Page