Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tekchand vs Lakhsman Gir on 5 February, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2920
1 MP-416-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 5 th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 416 of 2025
TEKCHAND AND OTHERS
Versus
LAKHSMAN GIR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Nilesh Agrawal - Advocate for the petitioners.
ORDER
By this petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioners/defendants No.6 and 7 have challenged the orders dated
25.05.2024 and 16.02.2024 passed by the trial Court whereby their
application under Order 23 Rule 3(A) read with Section 151 of the CPC and
under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of plaint have been rejected.
2. The contention of defendant No.6 and 7 has been that earlier two
civil suits had been instituted one of which had been dismissed for non-
appearance but the other one was decided on merits. A compromise decree
was also passed in view of which the present suit is not maintainable. The
plaint has been drafted astutely for the purpose of avoiding the bar of
previous suit. The same hence deserves to be rejected.
4. From a perusal of the relief claimed by plaintiffs in the suit it is
observed that the same is for declaration of title and permanent injunction.
The same has been claimed against all defendants and has not been claimed
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2920
2 MP-416-2025
against any particular defendant. It is not the case where one relief has been
claimed against one set of defendants and the other has been claimed against
the other set. The relief is apparently joint.
5. Even if the contention of defendants No.6 and 7 is accepted for the
sake of arguments then also the plaint would be rejected only in respect of
them and would not be rejected in respect of other defendants. The same
would be impermissible. It has been the settled principle laid down by the
Apex Court that a plaint cannot be rejected in part. The same can either be
rejected in totality or not at all. In cannot be rejected only against certain
defendants and continue against the others. This view has been recently
reiterated in Geetha, D/o Late Krishna and Others V. Nanjundaswamy and
Others 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1407 in which it has been held as under:
"12. There is yet another reason why the judgment of the High Court is not
sustainable. In an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC a plaint cannot
be rejected in part. This principle is well established and has been
continuously followed since the 1936 decision in Maqsud Ahmad v. Mathra
Datt & Co.4. This principle is also explained in a recent decision of this
Court in Sejal Glass Ltd. v. Navilan Merchants (P) Ltd.,5 which was again
followed in Madhav Prasad Aggarwal v. Axis Bank Ltd.6 The relevant
portion of Madhav Prasad (supra) is extracted hereinunder:
"10. We do not deem it necessary to elaborate on all other arguments as we
are inclined to accept the objection of the appellant(s) that the relief of
rejection of plaint in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC
cannot be pursued only in respect of one of the defendant(s). In other words,
the plaint has to be rejected as a whole or not at all, in exercise of power
under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC. Indeed, the learned Single Judge rejected
this objection raised by the appellant(s) by relying on the decision of the
Division Bench of the same High Court. However, we find that the decision
of this Court in Sejal Glass Ltd. [Sejal Glass Ltd. v. Navilan Merchants (P)
Ltd., (2018) 11 SCC 780 : (2018) 5 SCC (Civ) 256] is directly on the point.
In that case, an application was filed by the defendant(s) under Order 7 Rule
11(d) CPC stating that the plaint disclosed no cause of action. The civil
court held that the plaint is to be bifurcated as it did not disclose any cause
of action against the Director's Defendant(s) 2 to 4 therein. On that basis,
the High Court had opined that the suit can continue against Defendant 1
company alone. The question considered by this Court was whether such a
course is open to the civil court in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2920
3 MP-416-2025
11(d) CPC. The Court answered the said question in the negative by
adverting to several decisions on the point which had consistently held that
the plaint can either be rejected as a whole or not at all. The Court held that
it is not permissible to reject plaint qua any particular portion of a plaint
including against some of the defendant(s) and continue the same against
the others. In no uncertain terms the Court has held that if the plaint
survives against certain defendant(s) and/or properties, Order 7 Rule 11(d)
CPC will have no application at all, and the suit as a whole must then
proceed to trial.
...
12. Indubitably, the plaint can and must be rejected in exercise of powers
under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC on account of non-compliance with
mandatory requirements or being replete with any institutional deficiency at
the time of presentation of the plaint, ascribable to clauses (a) to (f) of Rule
11 of Order 7 CPC. In other words, the plaint as presented must proceed as a
whole or can be rejected as a whole but not in part..."
6. In the present case also even if all the contentions of defendants
No.6 and 7 are accepted then also the plaint would not be rejected in totality.
The same is impermissible to be rejected in part. Thus the applications as
preferred by defendants No.6 and 7 could not have been allowed by the trial
Court. No ground has been made out for interfering with the impugned
orders which are accordingly affirmed though for different reasons, as a
result of which the petition is dismissed.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
jyoti
