2022 (8) TMI 1365 - SC - Indian Laws

Rejection of Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - alleged fabricated General Power of Attorney - HELD THAT - It is well-settled that while considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, the averments in the plaint alone are to be examined and no other extraneous factor can be taken into consideration. On the basis of averments made by the plaintiffs in the suit as mentioned above, we find that it is disputed question of fact as to whether the Agreement to Sell, the Power of Attorney and the Sale Deeds are forged and fabricated documents. Such questions are required to be decided on the basis of evidence to be led by the parties. We do find that the forgery pleaded cannot be a ground for rejection of the plaint. The order passed by the High Court is set aside. The suit stands restored to its original number. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order passed by High Court rejecting plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 based on alleged forged and fabricated documents.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court addressed the challenge to the order passed by the High Court of Karnataka, which rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The plaintiffs contended that the Agreement to Sell, Power of Attorney, and Sale Deeds were forged and fabricated documents. The Court emphasized that while considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11, only the averments in the plaint are to be examined, and extraneous factors should not be considered. The Court noted that the issue of whether the documents were forged is a disputed question of fact, requiring evidence from both parties for resolution. The Court highlighted that the plea of forgery alone cannot be a basis for rejecting the plaint.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the suit to its original number. The Court directed that the suit should proceed, allowing the parties to raise all questions of law and facts. It emphasized the need for an expeditious resolution of the suit in accordance with the law. The judgment underscores the importance of evidence and due process in determining the validity of documents alleged to be forged, emphasizing that such issues should be decided based on evidence presented during the proceedings.