9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2004 (1) TMI 726 - SC - Indian LawsRejection of plaint u/r Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - continuance of tenancy and the period of tenancy - tenancy for a period of 11 years and not for 11 months as claimed by the trust - forcible dispossession - Jurisdiction of Civil Court vis-a-vis Sections 50, 51, and 80 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 - HELD THAT - The real object of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code is to keep out of courts irresponsible law suits. Therefore, the Order X of the Code is a tool in the hands of the Courts by resorting to which and by searching examination of the party in case the Court is prima facie of the view that the suit is an abuse of the process of the court in the sense that it is a bogus and irresponsible litigation, the jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code can be exercised. As noted supra, the Order VII Rule 11 does not justify rejection of any particular portion of the plaint. Order VI Rule 16 of the Code is relevant in this regard. It deals with 'striking out pleadings'. It has three clauses permitting the Court at any stage of the proceedings to strike out or amend any matter in any pleading i.e. (a) which may be unnecessary, Scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, or, (b) which may tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the suit, or, (c) which is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court. A reading of the plaint and the reliefs along with the contents of the plaint goes to show that the main dispute relates to the question of continuance of tenancy and the period of tenancy. They are in essence unrelated with the other reliefs regarding enquiry into the affairs of the trust. Such enquiries can only be undertaken u/s 50 of the Act. For instituting the suit of the nature specified in Section 50, prior consent of the Charity Commissioner is necessary under Section 51. To that extent Mr. Savant is right that the reliefs relatable to Section 50 would require a prior consent in terms of Section 51. If the plaintiffs give up those reliefs claimed in accordance with law, the question would be whether a cause of action for the residual claims/relief's warrant continuance of the suit. The nature of the dispute is to be resolved by the Civil Court. The question of tenancy cannot be decided u/s 50 of the Act. Section 51 is applicable only to suits which are filed by a person having interest in the trust. A tenant of the trust does not fall within the category of a person having an interest in the trust. Except relief in Para D of the plaint, the other reliefs could be claimed before and can be considered and adjudicated by the Civil Courts and the bar or impediment in Sections 50 and 51 of the Act will have no relevance or application to the other reliefs. That being so. Section 50 and 51 of the Act would not have any application to that part of the relief which relates to question of tenancy, the term of tenancy and the period of tenancy. The inevitable conclusion therefore is that Courts below were not justified in directing rejection of the plaint. However, the adjudication in the suit would be restricted to the question of tenancy, terms of tenancy and the period of tenancy only. For the rest of the reliefs, the plaintiffs shall be permitted within a month from today to make such application as warranted in law for relinquishing and/or giving up claim for other reliefs. The question of forcible possession as claimed is also a matter which can be pressed into service by the parties before the trial Court and if raised the Court shall deal with it considering its relevance to the suit and accept it or otherwise reject the plea in accordance with law. We do not think it necessary to express any opinion in that regard. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal.
Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of plaint u/r Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 2. Jurisdiction of Civil Court vis-a-vis Sections 50, 51, and 80 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. 3. Alleged forcible dispossession and entitlement to protection under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Summary: Issue 1: Rejection of plaint u/r Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 The appellants, who were plaintiffs in a suit, challenged the rejection of their plaint by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Srirampur, under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The trial court found that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action and that the jurisdiction to decide the matter lay with the District Court as per Section 80 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The High Court upheld the trial court's decision. The Supreme Court noted that for deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11, the averments in the plaint are germane, and the pleas taken by the defendant are irrelevant at that stage. The Court emphasized that the plaint should be read as a whole to ascertain its true import and that the reliefs claimed do not constitute the cause of action but the entitlement based on pleaded facts. Issue 2: Jurisdiction of Civil Court vis-a-vis Sections 50, 51, and 80 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 The plaintiffs contended that the tenancy was for 11 years, not 11 months as claimed by the trust, and sought reliefs including a declaration of tenancy and compensation for loss. The trust argued that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction under Sections 50, 51, and 80 of the Act. The Supreme Court held that the main dispute related to the question of tenancy, which could be adjudicated by the Civil Court. However, reliefs related to the enquiry into the affairs of the trust required prior consent of the Charity Commissioner under Section 51. The Court directed that the plaintiffs could relinquish the reliefs that required such consent and proceed with the suit for the remaining reliefs. Issue 3: Alleged forcible dispossession and entitlement to protection under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 The appellants claimed they were forcibly dispossessed, while the trust contended that possession was taken lawfully. The Supreme Court noted that a person in settled possession, even without title, is entitled to protection against forcible dispossession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The Court stated that the issue of forcible dispossession could be raised and adjudicated by the trial court. The Court also mentioned that the conduct of the plaintiffs in not depositing arrears and the surrender of possession by other tenants could be considered during the trial. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal to the extent that the suit could proceed on the issues of tenancy, terms of tenancy, and period of tenancy, while the plaintiffs could relinquish other reliefs requiring prior consent under the Act. The trial court was directed to complete the trial within six months.
|
