Sayyed Ayaz Ali Vs. Prakash G. Goyal and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (20 Jul 2021)

Court cannot allow Plaintiff to amend plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(D) of CPC

MANU/SC/0462/2021

Civil

The Appellant is the Plaintiff in a suit instituted before the Civil Judge. The first Respondent filed an application for the rejection of the plaint on the ground that, it was barred under Clauses (b) and (d) of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 ("CPC"). The trial Court allowed the application. However, while doing so, the Appellant was "directed to seek proper relief and pay court fee thereon within 15 days, otherwise appropriate order will be passed". This order of the Trial Judge, insofar as it permitted the Appellant to carry out an amendment for seeking appropriate reliefs was assailed before the High Court by Defendants.

The Defendants instituted a writ p etition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 for challenging the order of the Trial Judge allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. The High Court held that, since the plaint was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC, there was no occasion to direct that an amendment be made to the plaint. The Appellant is aggrieved by the decision of the Trial Court and the High Court to allow the application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC.

The definition of "decree" in Section 2(2) of CPC "shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint". The High Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction accepted the plea of the first and second Defendants that, the Trial Judge, having allowed the application Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC, was not justified in granting to the Appellant-Plaintiff liberty to amend the plaint by seeking appropriate reliefs and paying the court fee.

The proviso to Order 7 Rule 11(d) deals with a situation where time has been fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or for supplying of the requisite stamp paper. Under the proviso, the time so fixed shall not be extended unless the court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the Plaintiff was prevented by a cause of an exceptional nature from complying within the time fixed by the court and that a refusal to extend time would cause grave injustice to the Plaintiff. The proviso evidently covers the cases falling within the ambit of Clauses (b) and (c) and has no application to a rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC. In the circumstances, the High Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the further direction that was issued by the Trial Judge was not in consonance with law.

Present Court affirms the judgment of the Single Judge of the High Court allowing the revision application filed by the first and second Defendants; and dismissing the writ petition filed by the Appellant-Plaintiff.

Since the dismissal of the writ petition has been upheld on the ground that the order rejecting the plaint operates as a decree within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the CPC, the Appellant is at liberty to take recourse to the remedy against the rejection of the plaint as prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure. Appeals disposed of.

Tags : PLAINT AMENDMENT POWERS