LexBHAU RAM versus JANAK SINGH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2012] 6 S.C.R. 1018 BHAU RAM v. JANAK SINGH & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 5343 of 2012) JULY 20, 2012 [P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908: c 0. 7, r. 11 rlw s. 151 - Application for rejection of plaint - Held: While considering an application under 0. 7, r. 11, the court has to examine the averments· in the plaint; and the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be irrelevant - High Gourt is fully justified in confirming the 0 decision of the appellate court remitting the matter to trial court for consideration of all the issues. In respect of the suit land, the application of the tenant for proprietary rights uls 11 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land E Reforms Act, 1953, was ultimately allowed by the High Court in the second appeal filed by the appellant, who, after the death of the widow of the tenant, being their nephew, was substituted in the proceedings. The SLP of the purchaser, who had meanwhi.le purchased the suit F land from the owner thereof, was dismissed by the Supreme Court. Involving the same issue, one 'AS' who had earlier unsuccessfully filed an application for substitution after the death of the widow of the tenant claiming under a will, filed suit no. 424/1 of 99/97. The said G suit was dismissed for default, but was subsequently restored. He again filed suit no. 10/1 of 2004 for possession of the suit land. The appellant filed an application under 0. 7 r.11 read with s.151 CPC for rejection of the plaint which was allowed by the trial court H 1018 BHAU RAM v. JANAK SINGH & ORS. 1019 on the ground that the plaint was barred under the A provisions of 0. 9, rr. 8 and 9 and 0. 23, rr.1(3) and 4(b) CPC. The suit filed by 'AS' was dismissed, but the appeal filed by him was allowed on the ground that the trial court had taken the pleas from the written statement which was not permissible under 0. 7, r.11 CPC. By the impugned 8 order, the High Court dismissed the second appeal filed by the appellant. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The questions of law, as raised in the C second appeal, before the High Court are no longer needed to be decided in view of the settled law that while deciding the application under 0. 7, r.11, the.court has to examine the averments in the plaint and the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be o irrelevant. This aspect has been rightly dealt with by the High Court. [para 8-9] [1024-G-H; 1025-A, D-E] C. Natrajan vs. Ashim Bai and Another 2007 (11) SCR 33 = (2007) 14 SCC 183, Ram Pi'akash Gupta vs. Rajiv E Kumar Gupta and Others, 2007 (10 ) SCR 520 = (2007) 10 SCC 59, Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. vs. Hede and Company 2007 (6 ) SCR 608 = (2007) 5 SCC 614, Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. and . Others vs. Owners & Parties, Vessel M. V. Fortune Express and others, 2006 (1) SCR 860 = (2006) 3 SCC 100, Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and Others vs. Assistant Charity F Commissioner and Others, 2004 (1) SCR 1004 = (2004) 3 SCC 137, Saleem Bhai and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Others 2002 (5) Suppl. SCR 491 = (2003) 1 SCC 557; The Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society, represented by its Chairman vs. Mis G Ponniamman Educational Trust represented by its Chairperson/Managing Trustee, 2012 (6) JT 149 - relied on 1.2. It is significant to note that Suit No. 424/1 of 99/ H 1020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 6 S.C.R. A 97 which was dismissed for default had been restored by the trial court even at the time of filing of the application by the defendant under 0. 7, r.11 CPC and the said proceedings are going on. In view of the same, the provisions of 0.9, rr. 8 and 9 CPC are not applicable to 8 the said suit. Even otherwise, the relief sought in the suit (which was earlier dismissed for default) and in the instant suit are with regard to different properties. For the same reasons, the provisions of 0.23, rr. 1 (3) and 4 (b) of CPC are not applicable. [para 7) [1024-E-G] C 1.3. The High Court is fully justified in confirming the D E F G H decision of the appellate court remitting the matter to the trial court for consideration of all the issues. The trial court is directed to decide the suit in its entirety considering all the issues. [para 10) [1025-F] Case Law Reference: 2007 (11) SCR 33 relied on para 8 2007 (10) SCR 520 relied on para 8 2007. (6) SCR 608 relied on p
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.