RISHABH CHAND JAIN & ANOTHER versus GINESH CHANDRA JAIN

Citation: [2016] 2 S.C.R. 334 · Decided: 13-04-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 334 
RISHABH CHAND JAIN & ANOTHER 
v. 
GINESH CHANDRA JAIN 
(Civil Appeal No. 4543 of2016) 
APRIL 13,2016 
(KURIAN JOSEPH AND ROHINTON FALi NARIMAN, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
ss. 2(2), 96, 115, Order XIV r. I and Order XLI - Dismissal of 
suit - Without framing of issues - On the ground that th6 suit was 
barred by Res Judicata and the Jack of cause of action - High 
Court held that for dismissal of suit framing of issue is necessary 
whereas for rejection of plaint it is not - On appeal, held: The 
order of trial court though passed without framing of issues, 
conclusively determined the rights of the parties with regard to one 
of the matters in controversy i.e. Res Judicata -·Hence, such order 
is a decree - The order cannot cease to be a decree on account of 
procedural irregularity of non-framing an issue - Order of trial 
court was a composite order on rejection of plaint (since there was 
no cause of action) and dismissal of suit (since the same was not 
maintainable) - Both the wpects are covered by definition of decree 
- Thus, such order is appealable uls. 98 r!w Or. XL! of CFC -
Revision uA 115 CPC does not lie against the same. 
s. 2(2) - Decree - Meaning and Scope of - When the court 
conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to any 
one or more or all of the matters in controversy, requirement of 
decree is satisfied - Such determination can he preliminary or final 
- Rejection of plaint is deemed to be a decree - However, any 
adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order 
or an order of dismissal for default, is not a decree. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
·HELD: 1. In terms of Section 2(2) of CPC, if the court 
adjudicating the case, conclusively determines the rights of the 
parties with regard to any one or more or all of the matters in 
controversy in the suit, the requirement of decree is satisfied. 
Such determination can be preliminary or final. Rejection of a 
plaint is deemed to be a decree under Section 2(2) of CPC. Only 
334 
RISHABH CHAND JAIN & ANOTHER v. GINESH CHANDRA 335 
JAIN 
two orders are excluded-(i) auy adjudication from which an appeal 
lies as an appeal from an order and (ii) any order of dismissal for 
default. [Para 14] [339-G-H; 340-A] 
2. Order XLIII of CPC bas provided for appeals from 
orders. The impugned order does not come under Order XLIII. 
The order has conclusively determined the rights of the parties 
with regard to one of the matters in controversy iu the suit, viz., 
Res J11dicat11. True, it is not an order passed on framing an issue. 
But at the same time, there is adjudication on the controversy as 
to whether the suit is barred by Res J11dicma in the sense there 
is a judicial determination of the controversy after referring to 
the materials on record and after bearing both sides. The 
impugned order dismissing the suit on the ground of Res J11dicata 
does not cease to be a decree on account of a procedural 
irregularity of uou-framing an issue. The court ought to treat the 
decree as if the same bas been passed after framing the issue 
and on adjudication thereof. In such circumstances, what is to be 
seen is the effect and not the process. Even if there is a procedural 
irregularity in the process of passing such order, if the order 
passed is a decree under law, no revision lies under Section 115 
of the Code in view of the specific bar under sub-Section (2) 
thereof. It is only appealable under Section 96 read with Order 
XLI of the Code. [Paras 14 and 15) [340-A-D] 
3. The order passed by the trial court is a composite order 
on rejection of the plaint as there was no cause of action and 
dismissal of the suit as not maintainable on the ground of Res 
J11dicata. Both aspects are covered by the definition of decree 
nnder Section 2(2) of CPC and, therefore, the remedy is only 
appeal and not revision even if there is any irregularity in passing 
tlte orde1; [Para 16] [340-E-F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4543 
of2016 
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.08.2013 of the High Court 
of Patna in CR No. 783 of2010 
Gaurav Agrawal, Adv., for the Appellants. 
K. Y. Muthu Kumar, Ajay Kumar, Kundan Kumar Mishra, Advs., 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
for the Respondent. 
H 
336 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016 J 2 S.C.R. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KURIAN, J.: 
I. Leave granted. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
2. An Interlocutory Application filed in a

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