AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Appellant-plaintiff has preferred this first appeal to challenge order dated 24.08.2018, passed Additional District Judge, Anupgarh, District
Sriganganagar (for short, ‘learned trial Court’), whereby learned trial Court, while accepting application of respondent-defendants under Order
7 Rule 11 CPC, rejected the plaint.
The facts, in brief, giving rise to this first appeal are that appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract against respondents, inter-
alia, on the ground that on their behalf an agreement to sale was executed on 11.06.1991 pertaining to suit land but despite his readiness and
willingness, they failed to perform their part of the contract. Resisting the suit on behalf of respondent-defendants, an application under Order 7 Rule
11 CPC was filed precisely on the ground that the suit is barred by law by virtue of Section 42B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. As per version
of the respondent-defendants, they belong to Scheduled Caste being Chamar, and therefore, sale of agricultural land in favour of a person of upper
caste, to which appellant belongs, is forbidden in law. The learned trial Court, after hearing arguments of rival parties, while relying on the averments
made in application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and the documents produced, found the suit barred by law and consequently rejected the plaint.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondents, perused the impugned order and also scanned the entire record of
the case.
There remains no quarrel that Order 7 Rule 11 CPC envisages provision for rejection of plaint under certain contingencies, more particularly, when
from the averments made in the plaint it is clearly apparent that it does not disclose cause of action, or where the suit appears from the statements in
the plaint to be barred by any law.           As in the instant case, the precise objection raised on behalf of respondent-defendants
fell within the ambit of Clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 CPC, it was expected of learned trial Court to examine the statements in the plaint. However,
the learned trial Court, while granting indulgence to the respondent-defendants, has placed heavy reliance on the averments made in the application
under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and has further relied upon the document produced on their behalf.
Supreme Court in case of P.V. Guru Raj Reddy & Anr. Vs. P. Neeradha Reddy & Ors.[(2015) 8 SCC 331], while considering power under Order 7
Rule 11 CPC, has found that such power is drastic one, and therefore, has to be exercised solely by relying on the statements of facts in the plaint and
Court is not expected to take into account the averments made in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, or the written statement filed on behalf
of defendants. The Court has made following observations:
“5. Rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC is a drastic power conferred in the court to terminate a civil action at the threshold. The
conditions precedent to the exercise of power under Order 7 Rule 11, therefore, are stringent and have been consistently held to be so by the Court. It
is the averments in the plaint that have to be read as a whole to find out whether it discloses a cause of action or whether the suit is barred under any
law. At the stage of exercise of power under Order 7 Rule 11, the stand of the defendants in the written statement or in the application for rejection of
the plaint is wholly immaterial. It is only if the averments in the plaint ex facie do not disclose a cause of action or on a reading thereof the suit appears
to be barred under any law the plaint can be rejected. In all other situations, the claims will have to be adjudicated in the course of the trial.â€
In this view of the matter, learned trial Court has committed grave and serious error of law and fact in accepting the application under Order 7 Rule
11 CPC and consequently rejecting the plaint. The course adopted by the learned trial Court is per se contrary to the mandate of Clause (d) of Rule 11
of Order 7 CPC.
Reaultantly, the impugned order passed by learned trial Court is set aside and the matter is remanded back with a direction to the learned trial Court to
call upon the defendants to file written statement, and thereafter, to frame issues including issue relating to bar of the suit filed by appellant-plaintiff.
The trial Court is further expected to decide the issue relating to bar of the suit as preliminary issue.
The appeal is, accordingly, allowed subject to the observations made supra.