SAYYED AYAZ ALI versus PRAKASH G GOYAL & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 6 S.C.R. 661 · Decided: 20-07-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
661
SAYYED AYAZ ALI
v.
PRAKASH G GOYAL & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2401-2402 of 2021)
JULY 20, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
M R SHAH, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: s.96; Or.7 r.11 – Rejection of
plaint – Writ petition by plaintiff challenging the order of trial court
allowing the application filed under Or.7 r.11 – Maintainability of
– Held: The definition of “decree” in s.2(2) “shall be deemed to
include the rejection of a plaint” – Hence, the order of trial court
rejecting the plaint is subject to a first appeal under s.96 of the
CPC – Writ petition by plaintiff liable to be rejected on that ground
– Writ jurisdiction.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Or.7 r.11 – Trial court allowed
the application filed under Or.7 r.11 – However, while doing so,
plaintiff was directed to seek proper relief and pay court fee thereon
within 15 days otherwise appropriate order would be passed –
Defendants challenged the order of trial court in so far as it
permitted the plaintiff to carry out an amendment of seeking
appropriate relief – High Court allowed the revision petition filed
by defendants on the ground that since the plaint was rejected under
Or.7 r.11, there was no occasion to direct that an amendment be
made to the plaint – Held: The proviso to Or.7 r.11 deals with a
situation where time has been fixed by the Court for correction of
valuation or for supplying of the requisite stamp paper – Under the
proviso, the time so fixed shall not be extended unless the court, for
reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented
by a cause of an exceptional nature from complying within the time
fixed by the court and that a refusal to extend time would cause
grave injustice to the plaintiff – The proviso evidently covers the
cases falling within the ambit of clauses (b) and (c) and has no
application to a rejection of a plaint under Or.7 r.11(d) – In the
circumstances, the High Court was  justified in coming to the
conclusion that the further direction that was issued by trial judge
was not  in consonance with law.
[2021] 6 S.C.R. 661
661
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
662
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 6 S.C.R.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The definition of “decree” in Section 2(2) “shall
be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint”. Hence, the order
of the Trial Court rejecting the plaint is subject to a first appeal
under Section 96 of the CPC. The writ petition filed by
the appellant was liable to be rejected on that ground.
[Para 12][670-G]
2. The High Court while exercising its revisional
jurisdiction accepted the plea of the first and second defendants
that the Trial Judge, having allowed the application Order 7 Rule
11(d), was not justified in granting to the appellant-plaintiff liberty
to amend the plaint by seeking appropriate reliefs and paying the
court fee. The proviso to Order 7 Rule 11 deals with a situation
where time has been fixed by the Court for the correction of the
valuation or for supplying of the requisite stamp paper. Under
the proviso, the time so fixed shall not be extended unless the
court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff
was prevented by a cause of an exceptional nature from complying
within the time fixed by the court and that a refusal to extend
time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff. The proviso
evidently covers the cases falling within the ambit of clauses (b)
and (c) and has no application to a rejection of a plaint under
Order 7 Rule 11(d). In the circumstances, the High Court was
justified in coming to the conclusion that the further direction
that was issued by the Trial Judge was not in consonance with
law. [Para 13][671-A-B, G-H; 672-A-B]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2401-
2402 of 2021
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.09.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Civil Revision
Application No.124 of 2017 and Writ Petition No.4508 of 2018.
Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv., Raju Dhoble, Kishor Kam Lambat,
Ms.  Kashmira Lambat, M/s. Lambat and Associates, Advs. for the
Appellant.
Pankaj Kothari, Satyajit A Desai, Ms. Anagha S. Desai, Satya
Ram Sharma, Advs. for the Respondents.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
663
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. These appeals arise from a judgment of a Single Judge at the
Nagpur Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.
2. The appellant is the plaintiff in a suit instituted before the Civil
Judge, Sen
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.