2020 (1) TMI 1188 - HC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of plaint - suit dismissed for want of cause of action - maintainability of the said application questioned on the ground that once the court is seized of an application filed by him under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, it is precluded from entertaining the amendment application filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC - HELD THAT - It is well settled that the defence taken by the respondents/defendants in their written statement filed in opposition to the plaint cannot be taken into consideration while examining the merits of the application moved for seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as that would fly in the face of the settled position of law that to arrive at a conclusion as to whether a plaint is devoid of any cause of action, the court is required to restrict itself to examining the plaint as a whole on a premise that what has been stated therein, is correct and additionally, by referring to the documents filed by the plaintiff in support of the averments made in the plaint. A plaint cannot be rejected on the basis of allegations levelled by the defendant in the written statement or for that matter, in an application moved under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, for seeking rejection of the plaint. In exercise of its powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the court is required to look into the averments made in the plaint, which alone are germane. The entire plaint must be read as a whole to determine as to whether it discloses a cause of action. In undertaking the said exercise, the court is not expected to consider a particular plea and instead, the averments made in the plaint in entirety, have to be taken to be correct. Since a cause of action comprises of a bundle of facts, the same are required to be proved by the plaintiff only at the time of the trial. The course of action adopted in the impugned judgment of converting the application filed by the respondent No.3 for rejection of the plaint on the ground of want of cause of action, into an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and then dismissing the suit instituted by the appellant/plaintiff, is thus found to be untenable - the impugned judgment insofar as it has allowed the application moved by the respondent No.3 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC by treating the same an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, is not sustainable and is accordingly quashed and set aside - appeal allowed - the suit instituted by the appellant/plaintiff is restored to its original position for it to be taken up from the stage at which the amended plaint was allowed to be taken on the record.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the judgment dismissing the suit for want of cause of action.
2. Application for amendment of the plaint.
3. Rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
4. Examination of the amended plaint and accompanying documents.
5. Conversion of the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC into an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the judgment dismissing the suit for want of cause of action:
The appellant challenged the judgment dated 23.09.2019, which dismissed her suit for partition, rendition of accounts, and permanent injunction due to lack of cause of action. The court treated the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as one under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, leading to the dismissal of the suit.

2. Application for amendment of the plaint:
The appellant filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint, claiming she was unaware of a consent decree from a prior suit (CS(OS) 1175/2010) between her mother and uncle. She sought to include averments challenging the decree and an additional relief of declaration. The respondent contested this, arguing that the court could not entertain the amendment application once seized of the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The court allowed the amendment, noting that the appellant was not a party to the compromise in the previous suit.

3. Rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC:
The respondent filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, arguing the plaint lacked cause of action and material particulars about the creation of an HUF. The court examined the amended plaint, noting that the defense in the written statement could not be considered at this stage. Citing precedents, the court emphasized that the plaint alone should be examined to determine if it discloses a cause of action.

4. Examination of the amended plaint and accompanying documents:
The amended plaint elaborated on the existence of an HUF, claiming the properties were HUF assets and detailing the family history. The appellant filed several documents, including correspondence, income tax returns, and declarations, supporting the HUF's existence. The court, however, scrutinized these documents and concluded they did not sufficiently demonstrate the properties were HUF assets, leading to the rejection of the plaint.

5. Conversion of the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC into an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC:
The court's decision to treat the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as one under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and dismiss the suit was found untenable. The court should not have evaluated the merits of the appellant's claims or the authenticity of the documents at this stage. The averments in the plaint should have been assumed correct, and the suit should not have been dismissed without a trial. The court's skepticism about the HUF's existence and the properties' status was premature.

Conclusion:
The impugned judgment allowing the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC by treating it as one under Order XII Rule 6 CPC was quashed. The suit was restored to its original position for further proceedings. The court emphasized that the averments in the plaint should be taken as correct at this stage, and the suit should proceed to trial to determine the merits of the appellant's claims.

← Previous Next →