Order 7 rule 11

(2007) 8 MLJ 55 (Mad)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Present : K. Raviraja Pandian, J.

Case Number(s) : C.R.P. (PD) No. 1635 of 2005

Judgement Date : Thursday 09th of November 2006 J. Lili Jabakani and Others .....Appellant(s) Versus T. A. Chandrasekhar .....Respondent(s)

(A) Code of Civil procedure (5 of 1908), Order 7, Rule 11 - Rejection of plaint - Dismissal of application seeking rejection of plaint - Said order challenged - Petitioner contention plaint not disclosing any cause of action - Suit by plaintiff for declaration sale deeds non est, unenforceable and void ab initio - On ground terms of agreement not complied with - That sale deeds obtained by petitioner by fraud - Alleging collusion between defendent and petitioner to defraud plaintiff - That petitioner in possession of property without paying consideration - Bundle of facts averred in plaint, held, disclose vital and valid cause of action for relief sought for - Petitioner's contention rejected.

(B) Code of Civil Procedure (5 of 1908), Order 7, Rule 11 - Rejection of plaint - Dismissal of application under Order 7, Rule 11, C. P. C., challenged - Court fee paid, contended, not in accordance with law - That if suit valued as per sale consideration in documents, Court where suit filed, not have jurisdiction - Held, validity of sale deeds disputed in plaint averring suit sale deeds obtained by fraud, since no consideration paid - Alleging collusion between petitioners and defendent 'S' - Same being disputed questions of fact, cannot be ground for rejecting plaint - Under valuation under Order 7, Rule 11(b) not determined by Trial Court - No direction to correct valuation or to supply requisite stamp paper as per Order 7, Rule 11(d) given - No contention of bar of limitation - None of the ingredients of Order 7, Rule 11, C. P. C., made out.

(C) Code of Civil Procedure (5 of 1908), Order 7, Rule 11 - Rejection of plaint - Plaint cannot be rejected merely because plaint framed in different manner or such framing of plaint would make case weak.

(D) Constitution of India (1950), Article 227 - High Court's jurisdiction, under - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as amended w. e. f. 1-7-2002 - Section 115 - Scope - Established legal principle, Amendment in Section 115, C. P. C. by amending Act 46 of 1999 cannot affect High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 - High Court to exercise supervisory jurisdiction to keep subordinate Courts within bounds of their jurisdiction - Under Section 115, C. P. C., revision maintainable only if order in favour of party applying for revision would give finality to lis - If impugned order, of interim nature, does not decide this finally, revision not maintainable - Exercise of High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 - Principles.

Ratio(s) Decidendi

I. "When the bundle of facts averred in plaint discloses vital and valid cause of action for the relief sought for, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11, C. P. C., 1908."

II. "A disputed question of fact cannot be taken as a point for rejection of plaint at the threshold."

III. "Mere fact that the plaint framed in a different manner and such framing of the plaint would make the case weak cannot be ground to reject a plaint."

IV. Well established legal principle that the amendment w. e. f. 1. 7. 2002 in Section 115, C. P. C. cannot affect the High Courts jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India."

Cases Referred Chellakannu v. Kolanji, : (2005) 3 MLJ 389 Kamaleshwar Kishore Singh v. Paras Nath Singh, : (2001) Suppl MLJ 58 (SC) Ousepth Mathai v. Abdul Khadir AIR 2002 SC 110 Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2003 SC 759 Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai : (2003) 3 MLJ 60 (SC) Yeshwant Sakhalkar v. Hirabat Kamat Mhamai (2004) 6 SCC 71