SLP (C) No. 2177/2022 IV-A
HS Deekshit Vs Metropoli Overseas Limited
Date of Order:
Petitioners- H.S Deekshit & Anr
Respondents- M/s Metropoli Overseas Ltd & Ors
The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the High Court of Karnataka whereby the revision petition filed by defendant No.3 was allowed and plaint rejected in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 (a) and (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court granted leave for the same.
- Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (b) of CPC – This provision deals with the rejection of a plaint and sets the conditions for the same.
a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so
- The petitioner had approached the Karnataka High Court seeking to set aside the order passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge at Nelamangala. The plaint had been filed seeking reliefs towards passing the judgement and decree of partition directing the defendants to effect partition out of the suit schedule property by meets and bounds with the separate possession to the extent of 1/3rd share each plaintiff, in all to the extent of 2/3rd share together out of the suit schedule property by meets and bounds.
- It was also requested to pass the judgment and decree of declaration to declare the documents such as the Agreement of Sale, the General Power of Attorney, and the sale deeds to be not binding upon the shares of the plaintiffs.
- The plaintiff contented that details of the respondent no.3 were not accurate and the defendants 1 and 2 were not parties to the sale. The plaintiffs being sons of defendant no.1 were entitled to the share as said in the suit.
- The trial court had dismissed the application and hence the revision petition was filed at the Karnataka High Court. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original plaintiff submitted that the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts and for which the evidence is required to be led by the parties and therefore both, the High Court as well as the learned trial court, rightly refused to reject the plaint at the threshold and in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
- The Karnataka High Court rejected the plaint in terms of Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (b) of the Code.
- The dispute raised was a question of fact as to whether the Agreement to Sale, the GPA and the sale deeds were fabricated and forged and whether it alone can be held as ground for rejection of the plaint.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER
- The plaintiffs were pleading against an order by the High Court of Karnataka, which dismissed the plaint in accordance with Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (b) of the Code while granting the defendant's revision plea. The plaintiff claimed that the sale deeds were signed using a forged General Power of Attorney. It was alleged that this was done with the intention of wrongful gain of the suit property in mind.
- It was also stated that the signatures on the Registered Agreement of Sale were not of the defendants. The mandatory thumb impression of defendants 1 and 2 of the registered document, which was mandatory.
- It was further pleaded that the sale deeds were executed based upon this GPA.
- The Court while allowing the appeal observed 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.
- The question which was raised as to whether the submitted documents were forged is to be decided based upon the evidence led by the parties.
- It was found that the forgery pleaded cannot be ground for rejection of the plaint. Thus, the order passed by the High Court was set aside and the suit was restored to its original number.
- The suit was to be decided upon in accordance with the law, hearing both facts from parties.
Dismissing false, unreasonable, and improper plaints right away will save the time and resources of the judiciary. It also saves poor and innocent defendants from tiring legal struggles. However, no other factor other than the averments in the plaint can be held as a ground for such rejection. In this case, the apex court held that, mere allegation of forgery of the documents could not be considered as the sole reason for rejection of the plaint by the High Court.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement