In a groundbreaking decision dated November 30, the Supreme Court emphatically stated that the evaluation of evidence or merits of a controversy is impermissible when determining the rejection of a plaint application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.). The court asserted that this rule, outlining grounds for rejecting a plaint, bars such examinations.
Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal, constituting the bench, drew support for their pronouncement from a series of judgments on the application of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Among these cases, the reference to Kamala and others v. K. T. Eshwara Sa and others, (2008) 12 SCC 661, highlighted that only the plaint’s averments are relevant for invoking clause (d) of Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. No introduction or omission is permissible, and the court should not consider any evidence or delve into the merits of the matter at this stage.
Additionally, the court cited Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra), emphasizing that the remedy under Order 7 Rule 11 is a distinct and special mechanism allowing the court to summarily dismiss a suit without proceeding to a trial based on the evidence adduced.
The case in question involved an appeal against the Allahabad High Court’s order, which approved the rejection application filed by Ashok Vidyarthi (respondent no.1) in the Trial Court. This led to the dismissal of the suit initiated by Eldeco Housing And Industries Limited (appellant).
The dispute revolved around a Memorandum of Understanding signed in 1998 for the sale of a property, specifying ongoing litigation among the family members of respondent No. 1. The sale deed was contingent upon the resolution of the litigation and the determination of the vendor’s rights.
The appellant, discovering in 2009 that respondent No. 1 intended to sell the property, filed a suit for injunction. However, due to the appellant’s counsel’s non-appearance, the suit was dismissed. In 2015, the Supreme Court resolved the property litigation, but the appellant learned of another attempt to dispose of the property. Subsequently, the appellant filed a suit for specific performance, countered by respondent No. 1 with an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) C.P.C., arguing that the relief sought was available during the earlier injunction suit.
The court, after meticulous analysis and reference to precedent, determined that the cause of action for the suit for specific performance had not arisen at the time of the injunction suit. Rejecting the respondent’s argument that the suit was barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC, the court asserted that the examination of evidence or merits is not permissible at the stage of deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C.
In conclusion, the court set aside the impugned order and directed the Trial Court to proceed with the suit. The decision clarifies the limitations on examining evidence during the rejection of plaint applications, marking a significant development in jurisprudence.
Loading...
Reload document 
Open in new tab 
