The Supreme Court opined that allowing both the applications under Order VII Rule 10 and Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) is erroneous. If a plaint is rejected as per Order VII Rule 11, then the only recourse is to file a fresh plaint as per Order VII Rule 13, and the question of presenting the same plaint before the proper court as per Order VII Rule 10 does not/cannot arise only.
Brief Facts:
The present appeals have been preferred against the orders of the Bombay High Court vide which 2 revision applications were allowed against 2 orders passed on the same day respectively under Application preferred under Order VII Rule 10 and Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
Brief Background:
A civil suit was filed by the Appellants against 141 defendants seeking various reliefs. Some defendants preferred an application under Order VII Rule 10 for the return of the plaint for presentation to the proper court.
Another application was filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) seeking rejection of the plaint contending that the Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to grant relief.
The Trial Court dismissed both applications. However, on the filing of revision applications, the Bombay High Court allowed the revision applications. Hence, the present appeals.
Contentions of the Appellants (Plaintiffs):
It was contended that the suit only sought to enforce contractual rights. Further, the agreement conferred exclusive jurisdiction to the Court where the suit was filed.
Observations of the Court:
The mistake of the High Court was pointed out in allowing both the applications under Order VII Rule 10 and Order VII Rule 11. If a plaint is rejected as per Order VII Rule 11, then the only recourse is to file a fresh plaint as per Order VII Rule 13, and the question of presenting the same plaint before the proper court as per Order VII Rule 10 does not/cannot arise only.
Regarding the application under Order VII Rule 11, it was noted that the High Court did not intend to reject the plaint as nothing much is said about this application. Therefore, the order allowing the application under Order VII Rule 11 was modified by the Top Court.
It was observed that the reliefs sought by Plaintiff were both declaratory and injunctive. Further, as per the plaint, the residence of the Defendants is spread over a minimum of 10 states.
The Top Court opined that by instituting the suit in Pune for temporary reliefs and later reserving the right to file suit in Bengaluru, the Plaintiffs wanted to take the Defendants who are spread in more than 10 states, on a Bharat Darshan.
One of the reliefs sought by the Plaintiffs was to restrain the Defendants from handing over possession of the suit properties. If this prayer was granted, it would be executed as per Order XXI Rule 32 CPC. But for the Plaintiffs to actually seek recovery of possession, they would have to go to Bengaluru courts.
The Apex Court remarked that the language of the reliefs has been drafted in a way that it looks as if no relief is demanded as per Section 16(d) of the CPC, however, that is not the case.
It was clear that the suit related to the immovable properties and what was actually contested was the right, title, and interest of the Defendants to the suit properties.
Hence, it was ruled that the suit fell under Section 16(d). Opining that in civil cases, the half battle is won vide interim reliefs, the Court held that it could not be allowed to go to one court for temporary relief and another for permanent.
The decision of the Court:
Based on the findings, the Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the decision concerning the application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC and regarding Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the order was set aside. Accordingly, the appeals were partly allowed.
Case Title: Future Sector Land Developers LLP & Anr. V. Bagmane Developers P. Ltd. & Ors. Etc.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Ramasubramanian, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mittal
Case No: Civil Appeal No. of 2023 (SLP Civil No. 4018-19 of 2023)
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 165 SC
Advocate for Appellants: Adv. Ajit Sharma
Advocate for Respondents: Adv. R. Arunadhari Iyer
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
