2012 (7) TMI 1108 - SC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of plaint - maintainability of the application questioned on the ground that once the court is seized of an application filed by him under Order VII Rule 11 CPC - The trial Court allowed the application of the appellant/defendant No.1 filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the plaint was barred under the provisions of Order IX Rules 8 9 CPC and Order XXIII Rule 1 (3) 4 (b) of CPC. The said order of the trial Court was set aside by the first appellate Court on the ground that the trial Court had taken the pleas from the written statement of the defendant which is not permissible under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and the High Court in the second appeal confirmed the judgment of the first appellate Court. The trial Court, suit which was dismissed for default had been restored by the trial Court even at the time of filing of the application by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and it is also brought to our notice that the said proceedings are going on. In view of the same, the provisions of Order IX Rules 8 and 9 CPC are not applicable to the said suit. Even otherwise, the relief sought in the suit (which was earlier dismissed for default) and in the present suit are with regard to different properties. For the same reasons, the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 1 (3) 4 (b) of CPC are not applicable. HELD THAT - the High Court is fully justified in confirming the decision of the appellate Court remitting the matter to the trial Court for consideration of all the issues. In view of the fact that the suit is pending from 2002, we direct the trial Court to decide the suit in its entirety considering all the issues, after affording adequate opportunity to both the parties, and dispose of the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The civil appeal is dismissed with the above direction. No order as to costs.

Summary

Issues:
1) Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by the defendant.
2) Justification of High Court in confirming the decision of the lower appellate Court.
3) Consideration of all issues by the trial Court.

Analysis:

1) The judgment revolves around an appeal against the final judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh regarding the ownership of a land parcel. The appellant's legal representative, Reshmoo Devi, had filed a suit for possession of the land, which was decreed in her favor but later challenged by Kamla Devi. The case involved multiple legal representatives and a complex history of ownership transfers, including issues related to proprietary rights under the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953.

2) The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in upholding the decision of the lower appellate Court and remitting the matter back to the trial Court for a fresh consideration of all the issues. The Court had to determine if the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, filed by the defendant, could be decided solely based on the plaint or if other materials submitted by the defendant could also be considered.

3) The Supreme Court analyzed previous legal precedents to establish that while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only the averments in the plaint should be examined, and the pleas from the defendant's written statements are irrelevant. The Court emphasized the settled legal position that questions of law raised in the appeal were unnecessary to decide, as only the plaint's content was relevant. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court's decision, directing the trial Court to consider all issues and dispose of the case within six months, given its pending status since 2002.

Overall, the judgment provided a detailed analysis of the legal complexities surrounding the ownership dispute, emphasizing procedural requirements under the CPC and established legal principles governing such cases.