9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1741X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vision refers to the plaint which necessarily means the plaint as a whole. It is only where the plaint as a whole does not disclose a cause of action that Order VII Rule 11 springs into being and interdicts a suit from proceeding - It is settled law that the plaint as a whole alone can be rejected Under Order VII Rule 11. Applicability of Order VI Rule 16 for striking out pleadings - HELD THAT:- Order VI Rule 16 would not apply in the facts of the present case. There is no plea or averment to the effect that, as against the Directors, pleadings should be struck out on the ground that they are unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous, vexatious or that they may otherwise tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the suit or that it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deduction made by them or pay further amounts towards non-payment of TDS from 31/03/14 which they were liable to pay to the concerned authority along with further interest penalty towards non-payment of TDS 4. An application dated 08.07.2016 was filed by the Defendant(s) Under Order VII Rule 11 stating that the plaint disclosed no cause of action. By the impugned judgment dated 07.09.2016, it has been held that the plaint is to be bifurcated-it discloses no cause of action against the Directors i.e. Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 but the suit is to continue against the Defendant No. 1-Company. It has further been held that the Defendant, in any case, is barred from filing a written statement in the suit as he has taken inordinate time to do so. 5. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere the plaint as a whole does not disclose a cause of action that Order VII Rule 11 springs into being and interdicts a suit from proceeding. 6. It is settled law that the plaint as a whole alone can be rejected Under Order VII Rule 11. In Maqsud Ahmad v. Mathra Datt Co., : A.I.R. 1936 Lahore 1021 at 1022, the High Court held that a note recorded by the trial Court did not amount to a rejection of the plaint as a whole, as contemplated by the Code of Civil Procedure, and, therefore, rejected a revision petition in the following terms: There is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure for the rejection of a plaint in part, and the note recorded by the trial Court does not, therefore, amount to the rejection of the plaint as contemplated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the rejection in regard to the other part. This appeal which I am treating as a petition for revision must therefore be allowed and the Rule made absolute, and I order accordingly. 8. In (Sree Rajah) Venkata Rangiah Appa Rao Bahadur and Anr. v. Secretary of State and Ors. A.I.R. 1931 Madras 175 at 176, the Madras High Court held: Referring to Section 54 of the old Code of Civil Procedure, the learned Judge states that that Section only provides for the rejection of a plaint in the event of any matters specified in that Section not being complied with and it does not justify the rejection of any particular portion of a plaint. Section 54 now corresponds to Order 7, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure. The plain meaning of that Rule seems to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce the plaint as a whole should have been rejected, the baby was thrown out with the bathwater, and the entirety of the plaint and not merely the properties against which the suit could not proceed (as it was barred by limitation), was rejected. 10. We are afraid that this is a misreading of the Madras High Court judgment. It was only on the peculiar facts of that case that want of Section 80 Code of Civil Procedure against one Defendant led to the rejection of the plaint as a whole, as no cause of action would remain against the other Defendants. This cannot elevate itself into a Rule of law, that once a part of a plaint cannot proceed, the other part also cannot proceed, and the plaint as a whole must be rejected Under Order VII Rule 11. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first if that issue relates to- (a) the jurisdiction of the Court, or (b) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force, and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the other issues until after that issue has been determined, and may deal with the suit in accordance with the decision on that issue. 13. The Court is vested with a discretion under this order to deal with an issue of law, which it may try as a preliminary issue if it relates to the jurisdiction of the Court, or is a bar to the suit created for the time being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
