The Madhya Pradesh High Court while adjudicating upon a Civil Revision Petition questioning Trial Court's jurisdiction and procedural irreugarlity in one order, has answered as to whether an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC ought to be decided on the allegations in the plaint and filing of the written statement and evidence on merit is irrelevant and unnecessary?

The single-Judge Bench of Justice Anil Verma reflected on the legality of the order issued.

The petitioner/defendant has filed the present revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 being aggrieved by the impugned order of the Trial Court by which application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC has been rejected.

The Respondent No.1 has filed a suit for declaration and cancellation of sale deeds dated 30.8.1966 and 13.8.1976 against the petitioner. It is further prayed in the suit that possession of suit land shall also be handed over to the plaintiff. After service of notice upon the petitioners/defendants they have marked their appearance and filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC praying for rejection of the suit. The respondent/plaintiff has filed reply of the application.

Learned Counsel of the petitioner submitted that Section 257 of MPLRC clearly states that no civil court shall exercise jurisdiction over any of the matter like the present one and therefore, the trial court has erred in passing the impugned order without considering the factual aspects of the case. He futher submitted that present suit is clearly hit by provisions of Section 170- B and Section 257 of MPLRC. The trial court has wrongly come to the conclusion that civil court is competent to decide the issues whereas the provisions of section 257 of the Code has created clear barrier on entertaining such suit. 

He relied in SC Ruling in Ramti Devi Vs. Union of India, 1994 Latest Caselaw 530 SC  and other High Court judgements.

Per-contra, Learned Counsel for the respondent supported the reasoning given by the trial Court in the impugned order and submitted that the matter is not covered under Section 257 of MPLRC, therefore, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the matter and this revision petition should be dismissed.

He cited SC Rulings in Mohit Bhargava Vs. Bharat Bhushan Bhargava & Ors, 2007 Latest Caselaw 360 SC, Amrendra Pratap Singh Vs. Tej Bahadur Prajapati & Ors, 2003 Latest Caselaw 578 SC 

High Court Observation

The Court at the outset noted that the trial Court has dismissed the application filed on behalf of the petitioner under order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. On the basis of that, the matter should be adjudicated on the basis of the pleadings filed by the defendant and other objections should be decided on the basis of the evidence given by both the parties on merit.

The Court went onto note:

"A perusal of Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. makes it clear that the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application thereunder are the averments in the plaint. The trial court can exercise the power under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. at any stage of the suit-before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII C.P.C. the averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage, therefore, a direction to file the written statement without deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. cannot but be procedural irregularity touching the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court."

 In view of the above, the Court concluded that the Trial Court infact suffers from nonexercising of the jurisdiction vested in the court as well as procedural irregularity. The High Court, however, didn't advert to these aspects.

The Court referred to the findings in SC Rulings in Sapan Sukhdeo Sable and others Vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner and others, Sajjan Sikaria and others Vs. Shakuntala Devi Mishra and others and noted that Trial Judge's refusal to consider the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC on merit on the ground that the petition will be deciced on the basis of pleadings filed by the defendant is illegal in exercise of its power because for the purpose of deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC and that averment in the plaint alone are germane and pleas to be taken by the defendant in the written statement were wholly irrelevant.

"The use of the word “shall” in order 7 Rule 11 of CPC casts a duty on the Court to perform its obligations in rejecting the plaint where the same is hit by any of the infirmities provided under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, even without intervention of the defendant, therefore, it is clear that the impugned order passed by the Civil Judge, Class-II, Jobat, District – Alirajpur on 30/08/2018 in Civil Suit no. 22-A/2018 rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC on the ground that this petition will be decided on merit after completing the evidence of both the parties on merit and on the basis of written statement filed by the defendant was contrary to law and therefore, is liable to be set aside."

 In view of the above, the Court set aside the impugned judgement.

Read Judgement Here:

Share this Document :

Picture Source :

 
Sheetal Joon