AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.—This is a revision application against the Order dated 21st April, 1998 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Quepem dismissing the application filed under Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC by the petitioner. The said application was filed at the stage when the recording of the evidence of the plaintiffs was completed and the matter was fixed for recording of defence evidence. The petitioner is the defendant in the said suit bearing No. 83/1992/B.Tne suit has been filed by the respondents for damages on the ground that the respondents had suffered loss on account of vexatious proceedings initiated by the petitioner in the Court of Mamlatdar of Quepem against the respondents.
The contention of the petitioner is that the suit has been filed by the respondents on the ground that the property wherein the respondents wanted to construct the house belongs to the respondents, whereas, in the course of evidence produced by the respondents, it has come to light that the property belongs to some other person by name Ratnakar B. Shetkar. According to the petitioner, therefore, the respondents have no locus standi to file the suit in respect of the property which does not belong to him and, therefore, no cause of action is disclosed against the petitioner and hence, the plaint Is liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code.
Shri N. Sardessai, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submitted that though the provisions contained under Order VII, Rule 11 apparently appear to empower the Court to exercise the powers thereunder by perusing the pleadings in the plaint, considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal and Another, , and explained by the Delhi High Court in the matter of Sanjay Kaushish Vs. D.C. Kaushish and others, , the said powers can very well be exercised by taking into consideration the documents and the evidence produced by the plaintiff and at any stage of the suit. In other words, the power under Order VII, Rule 11 need not be exercised by merely on consideration of the pleadings in the plaint or the documents annexed thereto but the said powers can also be exercised by considering the evidence produced on the record by the plaintiff. The absence of cause of action need not be considered merely by looking at the pleadings in the plaint alone but the same can be considered by analysing the evidence produced by the plaintiff in support of such pleadings.
Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC reads thus:
Rejection of plaint. - The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) where the relief claimed is under valued, 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;
(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law ;
Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-papers shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-papers, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.
On plain reading of the said provision of law, it is apparent that the powers thereunder can be exercised only by taking into consideration the pleadings in the plaint. There can be no doubt that when plaintiff sues upon a document in his possession or power, he is bound to produce a true copy of such document alongwith the plaint. Such a copy of the document would, therefore, be a part of the plaint filed by the party and, therefore, the contents of such a document would naturally form part of the pleadings in the plaint. Therefore, in such cases the Court may in exercise of the powers under Order VII, Rule 11 take into consideration the contents of such a document since the document forms part of the pleadings.
The non-disclosure of cause of action spoken of in Order VII, Rule 11 (a) is in the plaint itself. This is clear from the Clause (a) in Rule 11 thereof; it refers to the plaint. It does not refer to the absence of cause of action for filing of the suit being disclosed in the course of evidence. Similarly the statement leading to the disclosure of bar against filing of a suit is specifically stated to be in the plaint itself in Clause (d) of the said Rule 11. It is not any statement in the course of evidence that can justify exercise of powers by the Court under Order VII, Rule 11(d) but, in order to invoke such powers, the statement must necessarily be in the plaint itself.
The contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the Apex Court has held that even the disclosure of absence of cause of action in the course of evidence would empower the Court to reject the plaint by exercise of powers under Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC is not correct. It would be advantageous to reproduce the relevant observation by the Apex Court in the decision relied upon by the petitioner himself. Justice Krishna Iyer speaking for the Bench therein has observed thus:
The learned Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful - not formal � reading of the plaintit is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his power under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clear drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order X, C.P.C. An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits. The Trial Courts would insist imperatively on examining the party at the first hearing so that bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage.
[Emphasis supplied] Here italicised.
On plain reading of the above observation, it is clear that the Apex Court, has nowhere held that the powers under Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC can be exercised by considering the evidence produced by the plaintiff or even by going through the statement of the plaintiff recorded under Order X of Civil Procedure Code. The very first sentence of the observation while dealing with the powers of the Court under Order VII, Rule 11 clearly states that such powers are to be exercised on ''reading of the plaint'' and not on reading of the evidence recorded or the statement recorded under Order X. The observation relating to putting an end to the bogus litigation at the earliest stage refers to the powers of the Court under Order X and not under Order VII. This is in fact clear from the beginning of the sentence in relation to powers under Order X where it starts with the words "And, if clear drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action". Moreover in the said case the Apex Court has dealt with two different provisions regarding the powers of the Court to put an end to the litigation at the earliest stage. One such power is under Order VII, and the other under Order X. However, the power under Order VII, Rule 11 can be exercised only by taking into consideration the pleadings in the plaint including the documents which form part of such pleadings, and not by perusing the evidence or the statement of the plaintiff under Order X.
The powers under Order X are independent of the powers under Order VII. The powers under Order X to put an end to the litigation cannot be exercised by way of rejection of the plaint but the same are exercised by pronouncement of Judgment on the rights of the parties to the suit and to the subject-matter thereof. This is clear from the various provisions contained under Order X. Rule 1 of Order X provides that at the first hearing of the suit the Court shall ascertain from parties as to which facts are admitted and which are denied either by way of specific averments or by implication. Rule 2 of Order X empowers the Court at the first hearing to examine the parties to elucidate the matter in controversy and also to examine any other person who is able to answer material question relating to the suit and in the course of such examination, Court is empowered to put the questions to the parties which are even suggested by either of the parties. Rule 3 provides that the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing by the Judge and it shall form part of the records. Rule 4(1) provides that where the party or person is unable to answer any material question relating to the suit, the Court can grant time to such party or person in order to enable the latter to furnish proper reply. However, in case party fails to appear in person on the appointed day Rule 4(2) provides that the Court may pronounce judgment or make such other order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit. In other words, Order X provides for an order on the basis of the examination of the party or person under the said Order. It does not relate to mere pleadings in the plaint. It would be totally misleading of the Judgment of the Apex Court to say that their Lordships in the said decision have held that the powers in Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC can be exercised even on perusal of statement under Order X of Civil Procedure Code.
It is, however, true that the learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court has held in Sanjay Kaushish v. D.C. Kaushish and Ors. (supra) that not only from bare reading of the plaint and the admitted documents and the facts coming out in the statement of the plaintiff under Order X of Civil Procedure Code, the Court can come to the conclusion that the plaint does not disclose cause of action or suit is barred by limitation and is not maintainable and the Court can decide the said points even without recording the evidence. Moreover while holding so, the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court has referred to two Judgments of the Apex Court, one in Azhar Hussain Vs. Rajiv Gandhi, , and the other in Hardwari Lal Vs. Kanwal Singh, .
The Apex Court in the matter of Hardwari Lal (supra) has held thus:
The gravamen of the charge of corrupt practice within the meaning of section 123(7) of the Act is obtaining or procuring or abetting or attempting to obtain or procure any assistance other than the giving of vote. In the absence of any suggestion as to what that assistance was, the election petition is lacking in the most vital and essential material fact to furnish a cause of action. Counsel on behalf of the respondent submitted that an election petition could not be dismissed by reason of want of material facts because Section 86 of the Act conferred power on the High Court to dismiss the election petition which did not comply with the provisions of Section 81 or Section 82 or Section 117 of the Act. It was emphasized that Section 83 did not find place in Section 86. u/s 87 of the Act every election petition shall be tried by the High Court as nearly as may be in accordance with the procedure applicable under the CPC 1908 to the trial of suits. A suit which does not furnish cause of action can be dismissed.
It is thus clear that the Apex Court in the case of Hardwari Lal has held that in view of the fact that the procedure applicable to the proceedings under Representation of the Peoples Act, the same can be dismissed when the petition does not furnish cause of action. It is nowhere held that the petition can be rejected In terms of powers under Order VII, Rule 11 on the basis of the evidence produced by the Petitioner.
In Azhar Hussain''s case the Apex Court has held that there is no escape from the conclusion that an election petition can be summarily dismissed if it does not furnish cause of action in exercise of powers under the Code of Civil Procedure. The Apex Court therein was dealing with the election petition wherein number of material facts essential to complete the cause of action were omitted. The allegations of the petitioner therein were relating to the involvement of corrupt practices in the course of election by late Rajiv Gandhi. However, the material facts relating to corrupt practice were not disclosed in the petition. It was in that context the Apex Court held that the Court while dealing with the matters pertaining to Election Petition in exercise of powers available under the CPC can dismiss the petition when the petition does not disclose the cause of action.
Very reference to the above two referred Judgments of the Apex Court by the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in relation to the above referred observation in the said decision disclose that what the learned Single Judge wants to convey is that when the pleadings in the plaint do not disclose the cause of action or it discloses that the suit is barred by law of limitation, the same can be ejected in exercise of powers under Order VII, Rule 11 and, at the same time, when the facts brought on record disclose the absence of cause of action or that the suit is barred by limitation or is not maintainable for any reasons, then the Court may in exercise of powers under Order X dismiss the suit. The Delhi High Court has nowhere stated that the plaint can be rejected on the basis of the evidence recorded before the Court.
In respect of powers of the Court under Order VII, Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of Jagannath Prasad and Others Vs. Smt. Chandrawati and Another, has held thus:
There is a clear distinction between a case where the plaint itself does not disclose any cause of action and a case in which, after the parties have produced oral and documentary evidence, the Court, on consideration of the entire material on record, comes to the conclusion that there was no cause of action for the suit. In the latter case, obviously, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C.
In the case in hand the respondents have filed the suit on the ground that they have suffered loss on account of false, vexatious and malicious proceedings filed by the petitioner before the Mamlatdar of Quepem and have claimed a sum of Rs. 18,800/- as damages. In the plaint the respondents have given detail account of the proceedings initiated by the petitioner before the Mamlatdar of Quepem as well as the details about the loss suffered by the respondents. The amount of Rs. 18,800/- has been arrived at on account of loss suffered on different heads and the same have been described in detail in paragraphs 5 to 18 of the plaint. In brief it is the contention of the respondents in the plaint that they being the co-owners of the property in question, they wanted to construct a house which was sought to be obstructed by the petitioner. The petitioner filed some proceedings before the Mamlatdar under the Mundkar Act, as a result of which the respondents had to stop the construction. However, after about 6� months from the date of the filing of the proceedings, the petitioner withdrew the said proceedings after realizing that same were bound to be dismissed. In the process, however, the materials brought by the respondents to the site for construction were damaged or rendered useless. Besides on account of litigation, the respondents suffered tension, agony, hardship, and expense towards defending the litigation including lawyers fees etc. On the face of the plaint, therefore it cannot be considered that no cause of action has been disclosed therein or that the suit is barred by any law of limitation.
The Trial Court by the impugned order while rejecting the application filed by the petitioner has also clearly held that the facts brought on record do not justify rejection of the plaint on any of the grounds.
There is no case of any arbitrary exercise of jurisdiction by the Trial Court in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. There is no jurisdictional error committed by the Trial Court in dismissing the application under Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC filed by the Petitioner. No interference by this Court in the revisional jurisdiction is called for and hence the petition is rejected.