SOPAN SUKHDEO SABLE AND ORS. versus ASSISTANT CHARITY COMMISSIONER AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] 1 S.C.R. 1004 · Decided: 23-01-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 10 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SOPAN SUKHDEO SABLE AND ORS. 
. < 
.... 
v. 
ASSISTANT CHARITY COMMISSIONER AND ORS. 
JANUARY 23, 2004 
B 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
" 
< 
c 
Order VII Rule I /-Rejection of Plaint-Plaintiff filed suit/or declaration 
thal they were lenanls under the defenda111s-Triai court dismissed suit as no 
cause of action was disclosed and also the suil was barred by an existing 
/aw-High Court affirmed the decision-Correctness of-Held: The whole 
plaint has lo be read to ascertain its true imp.ort-Re/ieft do not constitute 
' 
cause of action but constitute entitlement, if anjJ--Suit remanded to /rial courl 
D for fresh adjudication. 
Order VI Rule 2(1)-"Materia/ facts" and "Parliculars"-Dijference 
be1wee11-Explained. 
+ 
~ 
Specific Relief Act, 1963: Section 6-Possession-Person in sell/ed 
E possession-Rights of-Held: Such a person could not be dispossessed even 
hy the /rue owner excepl by recourse to /aw-Such a person enti!/ed to get 
back his possession if forcibly dispossessed. 
The appellants-plaintiffs filed a civil suit for a declaration that they 
were tenants under the respondents-defendants. The appellants also 
F alleged that they were forcibly dispossessed by the respondents. The trial 
court dismissed the suit under Order VII Rule I l(a) and (d) of the Code 
~ .. 
of Civil Procedure, 1908 as the plaint filed by the appellants did not 
disclose any cause. of action and also the suit was barred under Sections 
SO, SI and 80 of the Bo.mbay Public Trusts Act, 19SO. The High Court 
G 
affirmed this decision. Hence the appeal. 
On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that although some 
reliefs were to be dealt with by the authorities under the Bombay Public 
~ .. 
Trusts Act, the said reliefs were severable and that the civil court had 
jurisdiction to deal with them. 
H 
1004 
). . 
J. 
' * 
\. ). 
S.S. SABLE v. ASTT. CHARITY COMMISSIONER 
I 005 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. I. If on a meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint 
it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear 
right to sue, the Court should exercise the power under Order VII Rule 
A 
11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 taking care to see that the ground 
mentioned therein is fulfilled. If clever drafting has created the illusion of B 
a cause of action, it has to be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by 
examining the party searchingly under Order X of the Code. 11011-E-FI 
l. Arivandandam v. TV. Satyapal, 119771 4 SCC 467, relied on. 
Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra, 1200311 SCC 557 and/. TC. Lid. 
v. Debts Recove1y Appellate Tribunal, 119981 2 SCC 70, referred to. 
c 
1.2. It is trite law that not any particular plea has to be considered 
and the whole plaint has to be read. Only a part of the plaint cannot be 
rejected and if no cause of action is disclosed, the plaint as a whole must D 
be rejected. 11011-GI 
Roop Lal Sathi v. Nachhattar Singh Gill, 1198213 SCC 487, relied on. 
2.1. There cannot be any compartmentalization, dissection, E 
segregation and inversions of the language of various paragraphs in the 
plaint. If such a course is adopted it would run counter to the cardinal 
canon of interpretation according to which a pleading has to be read as a 
whole to ascertain its true import. It is not permissible to cull out a 
sentence or a passage and to read it out of the context in isolation. 
Although it is the substance and not merely the form that has to be looked F 
into, the pleading has to be construed as it stands without addition or 
subtraction of words or change of its apparent grammatical sense. The 
intention of the party concerned is to be gathered primarily from the tenor 
and terms of his pleadings taken as a whole. At the same time, it should 
be borne in mind that no pedantic approach should be adopted to defeat 
justice on hair-splitting technicalities. 11012-A-CI 
G 
Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd v. Ganesh Property. 1199817 SCC 184, relied 
on. 
2.2. The reliefs claimed do not constitute the cause of action. On the H 
1006 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2004) I S.C.R. 
A contrary, they constitute the entitlement, if any, on the basis of pleaded 
facts. JIOl2-D-EI 
B 
3. The real object of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code is to keep out of 
courts ·irresponsible lawsuits. Therefore, Order X of the Code is a tool in 
the hands of the Courts by resorting to which and by searching 
examination of the party in case the Court

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