#479 

#rejectionofplaint #order7rule11cpc
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No. 7413 of 2023
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 8147 of 2016)
KUM. GEETHA, D/O LATE KRISHNA & ORS. ....APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
NANJUNDASWAMY & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.
11. There is yet another reason why the judgment of the High Court
is not sustainable. In an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC a
plaint cannot be rejected in part. This principle is well established and
has been continuously followed since the 1936 decision in Maqsud
Ahmad v. Mathra Datt & Co4
. This principle is also explained in a
recent decision of this Court in Sejal Glass Ltd. v. Navilan Merchants (P) Ltd,
which was again followed in Madhav Prasad Aggarwal v. Axis
Bank Ltd
The relevant portion of Madhav Prasad (supra) is
extracted hereinunder:
“10. 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) 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 under Order 7 Rule 11(d) 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 Sejal Glass Ltd. [Sejal Glass Ltd. v. Navilan Merchants (P)
Ltd., (2018) 11 SCC 780 : (2018) 5 SCC (Civ) 256] is directly
on the point. In that case, an application was filed by the
defendant(s) under Order 7 Rule 11(d) 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 1 company 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) 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) CPC will have no application at
all, and the suit as a whole must then proceed to trial.
...
12. Indubitably, the plaint can and must be rejected in
exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC on account
of non-compliance with 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 CPC. In other words, the plaint as presented must proceed as a whole or can be rejected as a
whole but not in part...”
12. In view of the above referred principle, we have no hesitation in
holding that the High Court committed an error in rejecting the
plaint in part with respect to Schedule-A property and permitting the
Plaintiffs to prosecute the case only with respect to Schedule-B
property. This approach while considering an application under
Order VII Rule 11, CPC is impermissible. We, therefore, set aside the
judgment and order of the High Court even on this ground.
.