SALEEM BHAI AND ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 491 · Decided: 17-12-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI, ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

SALEEM BHAI AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 17, 2002 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND ARIJIT PASA YAT, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
Or. 7, r. Ir-Rejection of plaint-Plaintiffs filing suits for declaration 
that certain decrees and orders passed by courts are illegal, and are null and C 
void-Defendants filing application for rejection of the plaint contending 
that it does not indicate any cause of action and is barred by res judicata-
Tria1 court directing defendants to file written statement-Order affirmed by 
High Court-Held, the relevant facts to be looked into for deciding an 
application under Order 7, r.11 are the averments in the plaint-Trial court D 
can exercise the power under Order 7,r.11 at any stage of the suit, before 
registering the plaint or after issuing summons to defendant or at any time 
before conclusion of trial-For purpose of deciding an application under 
clauses (a) and (d) of r.11 of Order 7, the averments in the plaint are germane 
and pleas taken in written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that 
stage-:--Therefore, direction to file written statement without deciding E 
application under Order 7, r.11 would be procedural irregularity touching 
the exercise of jurisdiction by trial court-Order, therefore, suffers from non-
exercising of jurisdiction vested in court as well as procedural irregularity--
Order set aside-Matter remitted to trial court for deciding application 
under Oi:der 7, r.11 on the basis of averments made in the plaint. 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8518 of2002. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.5.2002 of the Madhya Pradesh 
High Court in CR No. 256/2002. 
WITH 
Civil Appeal No. 8519 of 2002. 
T.R. Andhyarujina, R.F. Nariman, Kailash Vasdev, K.K. Venugopal, S.V. 
G 
Deshpande, G.D. Sule, Ms. Anuradha Rastogi, Murari Lal Pathak, Manish H 
491 
492 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A Pitale, Chander Shekhar Ashri, Rashid Haque, Chandra Shekhar Ashri, Arun 
Agarwal, Shakil Nawaz, Kuldip Singh, Pavan Kumar, K.S. Rana, S.S.Shinde, 
V.N. Raghupathy, W.A. Nomani, B.S. Banthia for S.K. Agnihotri for the 
appearing parties. 
B 
c 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave is granted. 
These appeals arise from the common order of the High Court of 
Madhya Pradesh [Indore Bench] in Civil Revision Petition Nos. 256 of2002 
and 257 of 2002 dated 7th May, 2002. 
These cases have a chequered history but in the view we have taken, 
we do not consider it necessary to refer to the facts in any detail. Suffice it 
to say that Respondent No. 7 in the appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 13234 
of2002 and the sole respondent in the appeal arising out ofS.L.P. (C) 14577 
of 2002 filed suits in February, 2002, out of which these appeals arise. The 
D eighth defendant in the suits is the appellant in these two appeals. The said 
respondents-plaintiffs in the suits claimed, inter alia, the following relief: 
E 
F 
"(2). That it be declared that the Judgement and Decree passed by the 
Ill Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur in Special Civil Suit No. 
147 of1967, Judgement and Decree passed by IV Additional District 
Judge, Nagpur in regular Civil Appeal No. 16of1987, and approving 
the same in the Judgement and Decree passed by the Hon'ble Bombay 
High Court, Bench at Nagpur in Second Appeal No. 132 of 1992, and 
while maintaining this Judgement and Decree, Judgement and order 
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) 
No. 25004/96 and in Review Petition No. I 075/97 and order passed in 
various Revenue case No. 8/1996-97, are illegal, not in existence, null 
and void and are not withiA the jurisdiction and therefore are not 
binding on the plaintiff." 
The appellant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code 
G of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the C.P.C.') in the suits praying the court 
to dismiss the suits on the ground stated therein. Before us, it is stated that 
the plaint is liable to be rejected under clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11 of Order 
VII C.P.C. While so, the said respondenis also.filed an application under Order 
VIII Rule I 0 C.P.C. to pronounce judgement in the suits as the appellant did 
H not file his written statement. There was also an application by the appellant 
SALEEM v. ST A TE 
493 
under Section 151 C.P.C. praying the court to deci<!e first the application A 
under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. By order dated 8th December, 200
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.