LexSEJAL GLASS LTD. versus NAVILAN MERCHANTS PVT. LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 7 S.C.R. 557 SEJAL GLASS LTD. v. NAVILAN MERCHANTS PVT. LTD. (Civil Appeal No. I 0802 of 2017) AUGUST 21, 2017 [R. F. NARIMAN AND SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.I A B Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. 7, r.11 -Application filed under Or.7, r.11 - Trial court held that the plaint is to be bifurcated C as it discloses no cause of action against the directors i.e. Defendants 2 to 4 but the suit is to continue against the defendant . no.I-company - Correctness of - Held: it is settled law that the plaint as a whole alone can be rejected under Or. 7, r.11 - if the plaint survives against certain defendants and/or properties, Or. 7, r.11 will have no application at all, and the suit as a whole must D then proceed to trial - if only a portion of the plaint, as opposed to the plaint as a whole is to be struck out, Or. 6, r.16 of the CPC would apply - it is clear that Or.6, r.16 would not apply in the facts of the instant case - There is no plea or averment to the effect that, as against the Directors, pleadings should be struck out on the E ground that they are unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous, vexatious or that they may otherwise tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the suit or that it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court - impugned order is set aside - Defendant granted time to file written statement. Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Order VII rule 11 refers to the "plaint" which necessarily means the plaint as a whole. It is only where the plaint as a whole does not disclose a cause of action that Order VII Rule 11 springs into being and interdicts a suit from proceeding. It is settled law that the plaint as a whole alone can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11. If the plaint survives against certain defendants and/or properties, Order VII Rule 11 will have no application at all, and the suit as a whole must then proceed to trial. [Paras 5, 6, 10) (560-F, G; 562-H] 557 F G H 558 A B SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R. 2. If only a portion of the plaint, as opposed to the plaint as a whole is to be struck out, Order VI Rule 16 of the CPC would apply. It is clear that Order VI Rule 16 would not apply in the facts of the present case. There is no plea or averment to the effect that, as against the Directors, pleadings should be struck out on the ground that they are unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous, vexatious or that they may otherwise tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the suit or that it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court. [Para 111 1563-A, DI 3. The Court is vested with a discretion under Order XIV C Rule 2 to deal with an issue of law, which it may try as a preliminary issue if it relates to the jurisdiction of the Court, or is a bar to the suit created for the time being in force. Obviously, this provision would apply after issues are struck i.e. after a written statement is filed. This provision is not applicable in this case. The impugned judgment is set aside and the defendants in the suit D are granted time to file their written statement after which the E F G H suit will proceed to be tried. [Paras 13, 141 [564-A-CI Maqsud Ahmad v. Mathra Datt & Co. A.LR. 1936 Lahore 1021; Bansi Lal v. Som Parkash A.l.R. 1952 Punjab 38; (Sree Rajah) Venkata Rangiah Appa Rao Bahadur and another v. Secretary of State and others A.l.R. 1931 Madras 175; Ka/epu Pala Subrahmanyan v. Tiguti Venkata Peddiraju and others A.I.R. 1971 A.P. 313 - referred to. Case Law Reference A.LR. 1936 Lahore 1021 referred to Para6 A.I.R. 1952 Punjab 38 referred fo Para 7 A.I.R. 1931 Madras 175 referred to Paras A.I.R. 1971 A.P. 313 referred to Para 9 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTlON: Civil Appeal No. I 0802 of2017. SEJAL GLASS LTD. v. NAVILAN MERCHANTS PVT. LTD. 559 From the final Judgment and Order dated 07.09.2016 passed by A the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in I.A. No. 9930 of2016 in CS (COMM) No. 330 of2016 WITH Civil Appeal No. 10803 of2017. Mukul Gupta, Sr. Adv. Garvesh Kabra, Mrs. Pooja Kabra, Mrs. Nikita Kabra Jaju, Sibo Sankar Mishra, Vibhor Garg, Tushar Gupta; Sumit Mishra, Niranjan Sahu, Advs. for the appearing parties . . The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. F. NARIMAN, J. 1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. The respondent filed a Civil Suit being CS (Comm) No. 330 of B c · 2016 in April, 2016 praying for the following reliefs: D "a) Pas
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.