RAJENDRA BAJORIA AND OTHERS versus HEMANT KUMAR JALAN AND OTHERS

Citation: [2021] 10 S.C.R. 607 · Decided: 21-09-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
607
RAJENDRA BAJORIA AND OTHERS
v.
HEMANT KUMAR JALAN AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal Nos. 5819 -5822 of 2021)
SEPTEMBER 21, 2021
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.VII, r.11 – Rejection of
Plaint – A partnership firm was constituted under deed of
partnership dated 06.12.1943 – None of the original partners are
alive – Plaintiffs and defendants are legal heirs of the original
partners – A suit was filed by the plaintiffs claiming that inspite of
demise of the three original partners of the partnership firm, the
defendants were carrying on the business of the partnership firm –
It was also claimed that defendants were representing the partnership
firm excluding the plaintiffs – Therefore plaintiffs, inter alia, sought
decree of declaration that they along with defendants were entitled
to assets, properties of the firm and also sought dissolution of the
firm – Defendants filed applications including an application for
rejection of plaint – The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed
the applications – However, the Division Bench of the High Court
allowed the application for rejection of plaint – It was held that the
plaintiffs as legal heirs of some of the original partners cannot
maintain any claim in respect of the assets and properties of the
said firm – Their prayer for declaration of co-ownership of the
assets and properties of the said firm is not maintainable in law –
Further, it is settled law that only the partners of a firm can seek
dissolution of the firm – Admittedly, the plaintiffs are not partners
of the said firm – On appeal, held: The power conferred on the
court to terminate a civil action is a drastic one, and the conditions
enumerated u/Or.VII R.11 of CPC are required to be strictly adhered
to – However, u/Or.VII R.11 of CPC, the duty is cast upon the Court
to determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action, by
scrutinizing the averments in the plaint, read in conjunction with
the documents relied upon, or whether the suit is barred by any law
– The underlying object of Or.VII R.11 of CPC is that when a plaint
does not disclose a cause of action, the court would not permit the
plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings – In the instant
[2021] 10 S.C.R. 607
607
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
608
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
case, the findings of the Division Bench of the High Court are correct
– Considering the provisions of the Partnership Act and the clauses
of the partnership deed, the relief sought in the plaint cannot be
granted.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The court has to find out as to whether in the
background of the facts, the relief, as claimed in the plaint, can
be granted to the plaintiff. It has been held that if the court finds
that none of the reliefs sought in the plaint can be granted to the
plaintiff under the law, the question then arises is as to whether
such a suit is to be allowed to continue and go for trial.
[Para 17][618-D-E]
2. Therefore, the question that will have to be considered
is as to whether the reliefs as claimed in the plaint by the plaintiffs
could be granted or not. This Court does not propose to do that
exercise, inasmuch as the Division Bench of the High Court has
elaborately considered the issue as to whether, applying the
provisions of the said Act read with the aforesaid clauses in the
Partnership Deed, the reliefs, as claimed in the plaint, could be
granted or not. This Court is in complete agreement with the
findings of the High Court. [Paras 18 and 19][618-G-H; 621-A]
3. This Court in Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali
(Gajra) Dead Through Legal Representatives and Others has held
that the power conferred on the court to terminate a civil action
is a drastic one, and the conditions enumerated under Order VII
Rule 11 of CPC are required to be strictly adhered to. However,
under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the duty is cast upon the court
to determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action, by
scrutinizing the averments in the plaint, read in conjunction with
the documents relied upon, or whether the suit is barred by any
law. This Court has held that the underlying object of Order VII
Rule 11 of CPC is that when a plaint does not disclose a cause of
action, the court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily
protract the proceedings. It has been held that in such a case, it
will be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation so that
further judicial time is no

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.