Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Valmiki Mehta, J. allowed an appeal filed against the order of the trial court whereby the appellant’s plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

The appellant had brought a suit against the respondent for recovery of a certain amount. The trial court rejected his plaint mainly on the ground that the respondent was making payments during pendency of the suit, therefore, the amount as claimed by the appellant had vanished. In such circumstance, trial court held that the cause of action did not survive. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred the instant appeal.

The High Court, on perusal of the record, was of the view that the trial court completely erred in rejecting the appellant’s plaint. It was observed that during pendency of a suit, a defendant may always keep on making payments towards the amount claimed in the suit; however, that does not mean that the cause of action in the suit will vanish. In such circumstances, it was furtehr observed, the Court under Order VII Rule 11 will take notice of the subsequent event of repayments and will amend the suit amount and will decree the suit for lesser amount after making necessary adjustments. In view of the aforementioned, the High Court set aside the order impugned and directed the trial court to hear and decide the suit in accordance with law. [ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Vikas Kumar Thakur, RFA No. 901 of 2018, decided on 01-11-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Rajasthan High Court: The petitioner aggrieved by an order of rejection of his application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC by the Senior Civil Judge, Rajgarh preferred a petition. The respondent filed a suit for eviction and mesne profit against the petitioner-defendant before the Civil Judge, Rajgarh, Churu. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner preferred an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the respondent had terminated his tenancy vide notice dated 30.11.14 and thereafter, the tenancy could not have been terminated by way of yet another notice dated 11.12.15 and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed as the same would be barred by the principle of res judicata. The application was rejected by the court observing that the objections raised by the petitioner could only be decided after framing the issues, on the basis of the evidence to be led by the parties.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterating the stand taken before the court submitted that the tenancy having been terminated w.e.f. 30.11.14, the suit filed on the basis of the cause of action alleged to have been accrued pursuant to the notice dated 11.12.15 is not maintainable.

The High Court held that it is settled law that while deciding an application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d), the court is not competent to go into correctness or otherwise of the allegations contained in the plaint. The Court stated that the plaint can only be rejected if from bare perusal of the statement in the plaint without any addition or subtraction it appears to be barred by law.

The High Court not finding any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the trial court’s verdict refused to exercise its revisional jurisdiction and dismissed the petition stating that the suit as framed in no manner could be said to be barred by law. [Sudesh Kumar Saini v. Shri Satyanarayan Ji Mandir Dharmarth Turst, Post Sadulpur Disstt Churu, 2017 SCC OnLine Raj 2417, decided on 5.7.2017]