Orissa High Court
Uco Bank vs Purnima Agarwal And Others .... ... on 25 July, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRP No.15 of 2022
(In the matter of an application under Section 115 of
the Code of Civil Procedure)
UCO Bank, Rourkela Branch, .... Petitioner
Sector-19 represented
through the Branch Head-
cum-Chief Manager and
authorized Officer
-versus-
Purnima Agarwal and others .... Opposite Parties
Appeared in this case:-
For Petitioner : Mr. Subrat Mishra, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. Anupam Dash, Advocate
For Opposite Party No.1
Mr. Jagdish Biswal, Advocate
For Opposite Party No.2 & 3
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA
JUDGMENT
Date of hearing :02.07.2025 / date of judgment : 25.07.2025
A.C. Behera, J. This revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C., 1908
has been filed by the petitioner-Bank against the Opposite
Parties praying for setting aside an order of rejection to its
petition under Order-7, Rule-11 read with Section 151 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short "the C.P.C.,
1908") passed on dated 23.06.2022 in the suit vide C.S.
No.91 of 2020 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rourkela.
2. The petitioner-Bank in this revision is the defendant
no.2 and Opposite Party No.4 is the plaintiff, the Opposite
Party No.2 is the defendant no.1 and Opposite Party No.3 in
the suit vide C.S. No.91 of 2020 pending in the court of
learned Senior Civil Judge, Rourkela.
3. The C.S. No.91 of 2020 has been filed by the Opposite
Party No.1 in this revision being the plaintiff against the
petitioner and Opposite Party No.2 in this revision arraying
them as defendants, praying for several relief(s) against the
defendants and that suit vide C.S. No.91 of 2020 is
subjudice/pending in the court of learned Senior Civil
Judge, Rourkela.
4. The factual backgrounds of this revision, which
prompted the petitioner (defendant no.2) for filing of the
same is that, the defendant no.3 had availed loan from the
petitioner-Bank(defendant no.2) and in order to secure such
loan, the defendant no.1 mortgaged some properties in the
Bank(defendant no.2) including the suit scheduled
properties, as guarantor of the said loan of the defendant
no.3. Due to non-payment of the loan dues, the defendant
no.2-Bank decided to sell the suit scheduled mortgaged
properties issuing letters to the defendant nos.1 and 3
stating that, the secured suit scheduled properties shall be
released subject to deposit of Rs.3,25,000,000/-(rupees
three crores twenty-five lakhs) and thereafter with the
knowledge of the Bank(defendant no.2), defendant nos.1
and 3, the plaintiff paid all the outstanding loan dues of the
defendant no.3 to the defendant no.2-Bank, to which,
defendant no.2-Bank acknowledged. When, with the
knowledge, consent and acknowledgement of the defendant
no.2-Bank, the plaintiff paid Rs.3,25,000,000/-(rupees
three crores twenty-five lakhs) to the defendant no.2-Banl
making clear to all the loan outstanding dues against
defendant no.3 for releasing the mortgaged suit scheduled
properties of the defendant no.1 in her favour, then, at this
juncture, the defendant no.2-Bank and defendant no.1 are
jointly liable for releasing the suit scheduled properties in
favour of the plaintiff. As, the defendant no.2-Bank did not
do so, then, the plaintiff approached the Civil Court by filing
a suit vide C.S. No.91 of 2020 on dated 06.05.2020 against
the defendants praying for the reliefs indicated in the plaint.
5. During the pendency of the suit vide C.S. No.91 of
2020, the defendant no.2-Bank filed a petition on dated
14.03.2022 under Order-7, Rule-11 read with Section 151
of the C.P.C. praying for rejection of the plaint of the
plaintiff on the following grounds, i.e., :-
(a) The suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation.
(b) The suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as per
Sections 13 and 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
(c) The Civil Court lacks its jurisdiction to entertain
the suit, in view of Section 17 of the SARFAESI
Act, 2002, because, the matter relates to the
SARFAESI Act, 2002, the same can only be tried
before the DRT.
(d) The Civil Court has no jurisdiction to grant any of
the reliefs sought for by the plaintiff in the suit
vide C.S. No.91 of 2020.
(e) The suit of the plaintiff vide C.S. No.91 of 2020, is
not entetainable in the Civil Court.
(f) There is no cause of action for the plaintiff to
institute the suit.
(h) The plaint of the plaintiff is liable to be rejected
due to non-pleading of material facts.
6. To which, the plaintiff objected by filing her objection
stating that, the petition under Order-7, Rule-11 read with
Section 151 of the C.P.C. of the defendant no.2-Bank at the
belated stage, i.e., at the fag end of the trial of the suit is
not entertainable under law. For which, such petition of the
defendant no.2-Bank is baseless. The defendant no.2-Bank
has intended to mis-direct the Court. The averments made
in the plaint of the plaintiff is clearly going to show about
the fraudulent actions and activities of the defendant no.2-
Bank and such fraudulent communications, acts and
activities of the defendant no.2-Bank in defeating the
justified claim of the plaintiff are required to be adjudicated
and decided through elicition of evidence after full-fledged
trial of the suit and the suit of the plaintiff cannot be held
as not maintainable under law prior to its judgment. The
plaintiff has cause of action for filing the suit. The Civil
Court has jurisdiction to grant the reliefs sought for by the
plaintiff. The grounds raised by the defendant no.2-Bank in
its petition under Order-7, Rule-11(d) read with Section 151
of the C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint are based on facts,
for which, without the trial of the suit, the plaint of the
plaintiff cannot be rejected. The conduct of the defendant
no.2-Bank in filing the petition for rejection of plaint at the
fag end of the trial of the suit is not at all bonafide. For
which, the petition dated 14.03.2022 under Order-7, Rule-
11 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. of the defendant
no.2-Bank is liable to be rejected.
7. After hearing from the learned counsels of both the
sides, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rourkela rejected to
that petition dated 14.03.2022 under Order-7, Rule-11 read
with Section 151 of the C.P.C. of the defendant no.2-Bank
on dated 23.06.2022 assigning the reasons that,
"the evidence from the side of the plaintiff and
defendant no.1 in the suit vide C.S. No.91 of 2020 has
already been closed. After closure of evidence from the side
of the plaintiff and defendant no.1, when, the defendant
no.2-Bank filed a petition on dated 1403.2022 under Order-
7, Rule-11 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C., 1908 praying
for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff without producing the
witness of the defendant no.2-Bank in the court for
examination, then in such a situation, without proceeding for
completion of rest part of the trial of the suit, it is not
desirable to reject the plaint of the plaintiff under Order-7,
Rule-11 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C., 1908. For which,
the petition under Order-7, Rule-11 read with Section 151 of
the C.P.C. filed by the defendant no.2-Bank is rejected being
devoid of any merit."
8. On being aggrieved with the above impugned order,
i.e., rejection of the petition under Order-7, Rule-11 read
with Section 151 of the C.P.C. of the defendant no.2-Bank
passed on dated 23.06.2022 in the suit vide C.S. No.91 of
2020 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rourkela, the
defendant no.2-Bank challenged the same by filing this
revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C., 1908 being the
petitioner against the plaintiff arraying her as Opposite
Party No.1 and also arraying the defendant nos.1 and 3 as
Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 respectively.
9. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the
petitioner(defendant no.2-Bank), the learned counsel for the
Opposite Party No.1(plaintiff) and the learned counsel for
the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3(defendant nos.1 and 3).
10. In order to assail the impugned order dated
23.06.2022 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge,
Rourkela in C.S. No.91 of 2020, the learned counsel for the
petitioner(defendant no.2-Bank) relied upon the following
decisions:-
(i) (2007) 10 SCC-59 : Ram Prakash Gupta vrs.
Rajiv Kumar Gupta and others, Civil Appeal
No.4570 of 2023 decided on 11.09.2024 : M/s.
Bhagya Estate Ventures Pvt. Ltd. vrs. Narne Estates
Pvt. Ltd and another, 2025 SCC online SC-975, P.
Kumarakurubaran vrs. P. Narayanan and others,
2017 (Supl.I) OLR-888 : Bata Kishore Seth vrs.
Kalarsing Meher and another, Livelaw(SC)-822 : C.S.
Ramaswamy vrs. K. Senthil and others, Civil Appeal
No.2717 of 2023 : Venkatanna and another vrs.
Nasyam Jamal Saheb and others, Civil Appeal
No.14807 of 2024(arising out of SLP(C) No.18977 of
2016) : Sri Mukund Bhavan Trust and others vrs.
Srimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsingh
Maharaj Bhonsle and another, (2022) 2 SCC-573 :
Electrosteel Casrings Ltd. vrs. U.V. Asset
Reconstruction Co. Ltd., (2020) 16 SCC-
601(Para-7) : Raghvendra Sharan Singh vrs. Ram
Prasanna Singh (dead) through Legal
Representatives, (2014) 14 SCC-254 : Suresh Kumar
Dagla vrs. Sarwan and another, (2018) 8 SCC-
120(Paras-8 and 9) : Authorized officer, State Bank
of India vrs. Allwyn Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and others,
(2015) 4 SCC-371(Paras-16 to 20) : Om Agrawal vrs.
Haryana Financial Corporation and others, (2005)
11 SCC-314 : Sangramsingh P. Gaekwad and others
vrs. Shantadevi P. Gaekwad and others, (2003) 1
SCC(Para-9) : Saleem Bhai and others vrs. Sate of
Maharashtra and other, (2021) 6 SCC-707(Para-12) :
Opto Circuit India vrs. Axis Bank and others,
(2005) 11 SCC-3144(Paras-143 to 145) : Sangram
Singh P. Gaeakwad and others vrs. Shanti Devi and
others, (2023) 16 SCC-331 : Punjab and Sind Bank
vrs,. Frontline Corporation Ltd., (2018) 1 SCC-626 :
B. Agarwal Tracom Pvt. Ltd vrs. Punjab National
Bank and others, (2014) 1 SCC-479 : Jagdish Singh
vrs. Heeralal and others, (1019) 14 SCC-788 : Shree
Anandhakumar Mills Ltd. vrs. Indian Overseas
Bank and Others and (1998) 2 SCC-70 (Paras-12 to
14) : ITC Limited vrs. Debts Recovery Appellate
Tribunal.
11. In support of the impugned order dated 23.06.2022
passed in C.S. No.91 of 2020, the learned counsel for the
Opposite Party No.1(plaintiff) relied upon the following
decisions:-
(i) Civil appeal No.4570 of 2023 decided on
11.09.2024 : M/s. Bhagya Estate Ventures Private
Ltd. vrs. Narne Estate Pvt. Ltd. and another and
(2007) 10 SCC-59 : Ram Prakash Gupta vrs. Rajiv
Kumar Gupta and others.
12. It appears from the record that, the suit vide C.S.
No.91 of 2020 was filed by the plaintiff(Opposite Party No.1
in this revision) on dated 06.05.2020. The defendant no.2-
Bank filed the petition under Order-7, Rule-11 read with
Section 151 of the C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint on dated
14.03.2022, when, the suit vide C.S. No.91 of 2020 was at
the fag end of its trial, because, by that time, the evidence
from the side of the plaintiff and defendant no.1 was closed
due to examination and cross-examination of the witnesses
of the plaintiff and defendant no.1. When, the suit was
posted for examination of witness from the side of the
defendant no.2-Bank in that stage, instead of examining
any witness on behalf of the defendant no.2-Bank, the
defendant no.2-Bank filed the petition on dated 14.03.2022
under Order-7, Rule-11 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C.,
1908 praying for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff.
13. It is fundamental in law that, a petition for rejection of
plaint can be filed by any of the defendants in the suit at
any stage of the suit.
14. It is the settled propositions of law that, when the Civil
Court has the jurisdiction to decide one relief out of several
reliefs in a plaint, the suit is maintainable in the Civil
Court, irrespective of the facts, whether other reliefs can be
granted or not.
Likewise, a plaint cannot be rejected in part, because,
the law does not provide for the compartmental rejection of
a plaint.
15. The grounds for rejection of the plaint raised by the
plaintiff in its petition under Order-7, Rule-11 read with
Section 151 of the C.P.C., as indicated above in paragraph-
5 of this judgment are the issues in the suit vide C.S. No.91
of 2020.
The parties to the suit including the defendant no.2-
Bank after knowing about issues framed covering the
grounds in the petition dated 14.03.2022 under Order-7,
Rule-11 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C., 1908
proceeded with the trial of the suit vide C.S. No.91 of 2020
up-to the closure of evidence of the plaintiff and defendant
no.1.
16. It is the settled propositions of law that, when there is
an issue in the suit, the said issue needs to be decided by
the Court in the final judgment of the suit, but, the same
would not provide the ground for rejection of plaint under
Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908. Because, the ground
raised by the defendant for rejection of the plaint shall be
answered very well in the judgment of that suit after
appreciation of the pleadings and evidence of the parties.
17. Therefore, the grounds raised by the defendant no.2-
Bank for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff being the
contentious issues in the suit shall be adjudicated by the
trial Court on the basis of the pleadings and evidence of the
parties and the said issues shall be answered properly and
effectively in the judgment of the suit. For which, filing of
the petition by the defendant no.2-Bank for rejection of
plaint of the plaintiff at a belated stage of the suit vide C.S.
No.91 of 2020 after closure of evidence of the plaintiff and
defendant no.2-Bank is to be disapproved.
18. On this aspect, the propositions of the above
observations made above find support from the ratio of the
following decisions of the Apex Court and the Hon'ble
Courts :-
(i) In a case between M/s. Bhagya Estate
Ventures Pvt. Ltd. vrs. Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd.
and another decided on dated 11.09.2024 (by
three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court) in
Civil Appeal No.4570 of 2023 at Para-15 that,
there is no reason for the right of the defendant to
raise a plea for rejection of the plaint by filing an
application under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C. at
a far belated stage such as final arguments or
nearing conclusion of the trial of the suit. Allowing
such pleas to be raised after the trial has proceeded
so far would not only defeat the intent of the
provisions but would also go against the principle of
equity and would lead to wastage of the court
resources. Additionally, allowing such rights to
survive till eternity only act as a catalyst for the
defendant to misuse the provision to prolong or
delay the trial and abuse the process of law.
(ii) In a case between Ram Prakash Gupta vrs.
Rajiv Kumar Gupta and others : reported in
(2007) 10 SCC-59 that, rejection of the plaint
under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C. at a belated
stage after filing of written statement, framing of
issues and cross-examination, disapproved.
(iii) In a case between Rajiv Kant and others
vrs. Govind Singh Pathania decided in
C.M.P.M.O. No.421 of 2018 on 04.04.2021 in the
High Court of Himachal Pradesh that, moving of
an application under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C.
for rejection of plaint at fag end of trial is nothing
but a try to drag proceedings.
(iv) In a case between Jagir Singh vrs. Shama :
reported in 2016(2) Civil Court Cases-181(P&H)
(Para-3) that, when, the petition for rejection of
plaint is under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C. is
filed after the conclusion of the plaintiffs evidence
and when it was the turn of the defendant to
examine himself and when he was even cross-
examined, the application for rejection of plaint was
surely not bonafide.
(v) In a case between Panjarapol Society,
Churu and another vrs. Board of Revenue,
Ajmer and others : reported in 2019(3) C.J. (Civil)
Rajasthan-1415 that, obviously contentious of
issues shall be adjudicated by the Court on the
basis of evidence to be led by the parties. For which,
the application under Order-7, Rule-11 of the
C.P.C. for rejection rightly the plaint is dismissed.
(vi) In a case between ICICI Bank Ltd. vrs.
Narendra Kumar Bhutani : reported in 2014(3)
Civil Court Cases-648 (Rajasthan) that, when
application under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C. for
rejection of plaint belatedly filed after conclusion of
evidence of plaintiff and defendant failed to point
out for bar contained under any statute against
filing of the suit with regard to the relief claimed by
the plaintiff. Maintainability of suit be decided after
parties laid evidence. Rejection to the application
under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C. calls for no
interference.
(vii) In a case between Prajapati Rameshkumar
Bhagwandas vrs. Thakore Jugaji Malaj :
reported in 2020(1) Civil Court Cases-
299(Gujarat) that, when the trial of the suit has
commenced and application under Order-7, Rule-11
of the C.P.C. for rejection of plaint filed at a much
belated stage, same is not required to be
entertained as a belated attempt deserves to be
discouraged, application under Order-7, Rule-11 of
the C.P.C. rejected.
(viii) In a case between Shri Elmano menio Dias
vrs. The Archbishop, Archdiocese of Goa :
reported in 2009(2) Civil Court Cases-113
(Bombay) that, when, there is an issue which needs
to be decided by the Court at the final hearing, it
will not provide the ground for rejection of the plaint
under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C.
(ix) In a case between Nanu Ram Sharma and
another vrs. Additional District Judge(Fast
Track) No.2, Jaipur District Jaipur and others :
reported in 2012(2) Civil Court Cases-
462(Rajasthan) that, when written statement filed
and thereafter, application under Order-7, Rule-11
of the C.P.C. for rejection of plaint filed. Plea that
suit is not maintainable. Order that objections
raised by the defendant shall be taken into
consideration after recording the evidence of both
the parties. No error.
19. Here, in this matter at hand, when the defendant
no.2-Bank has filed the petition under Order-7, Rule-11
read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. on dated 14.03.2022
after closure of evidence from the side of the plaintiff and
defendant no.1, and when the suit vide C.S. No.91 of 2020
was posted for adducing evidence from the side of the
defendant no.2-Bank, then, at this juncture, by applying
the propositions of law enunciated by the Apex Court and
the Hon'ble Courts in the ratio of the above decisions
indicated above in Para No.18 of this judgment including
the decisions relied by the parties indicated in Para Nos.10
and 11 of this judgment, it is held that, petition dated
14.03.2022 of the defendant no.2-Bank under Order-7,
Rule-11 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C., 1908 for
rejection of plaint of the plaintiff at the fag end of the trial of
the suit is not bonafide. Because, the grounds raised by the
defendant no.2-Bank in its petition dated 14.03.2022 under
Order-7, Rule-11 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C., 1908
for rejection of plaint of the plaintiff are the issues in the
suit vide C.S. No.91 of 2020 and the said issues shall be
decided finally in its judgment within a very short period
only after closure of evidence from the side of the defendant
no.2-Bank. For which, the aforesaid belated attempt of the
defendant no.2-Bank in filing a petition under Order-7,
Rule-11 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C., 1908 for
rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff is discouraged.
20. That apart, when the trial of the suit vide C.S. No.91 of
2020 has progressed substantially and the same is at its fag
end, then at this stage, if the defendant no.2-Bank will be
allowed to raise the issues in the suit again as the grounds
in its petition dated 14.03.2022 under Order-7, Rule-11
read with Section 151 of the C.P.C., 1908 for rejection of
plaint of the plaintiff, the same will not only nullify the
intention of the provisions under Orde-7, Rule-11 of the
C.P.C., but that will go against the principle of equity and
the same shall ultimately lead to wastage of time of the
Court prolonging the trial of the suit resulting in abuse of
process of the court.
21. As per the discussions and observations made above,
when it is held that, the petition dated 14.03.2022 under
Order-7, Rule-11 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C., 1908
of the defendant no.2-Bank for the rejection of the plaint of
the plaintiff was not bonafide, then at this juncture, it
cannot be held that, the rejection of that petition of the
defendant no.2-Bank by the trial court through the
impugned order dated 23.06.2022 is erroneous. For which,
the question of interfering with the same through this
revision filed by the petitioner(defendant no.2-Bank) does
not arise.
22. Therefore, there is no merit in this revision filed by the
petitioner(defendant no.2-Bank). The same must fail.
23. In result, this revision filed by the petitioner
(defendant no.2-Bank) is dismissed on contest.
24. The Trial Court, i.e., learned Senior Civil Judge,
Rourkela is directed to dispose of the suit vide C.S. No.91 of
2020 pending in its court as expeditiously as possible
within a period of four months from the date of
communication of this judgment.
The parties of this revision are directed to appear in
the court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rourkela in C.S.
No.91 of 2020 on dated 11.08.2025 for the purpose of
receiving the directions of the learned Senior Civil Judge,
Rourkela as to further proceedings of that suit vide C.S.
No.91 of 2020.
25. As such, this revision is disposed of finally.
( A.C. Behera )
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 25th of July, 2025/ Jagabandhu, P.A.
Designation: Personal Assistant
