HC: While deciding an application under O7R11 CPC, the Court can look only at the averments in the plaint, the documents filed, and nothing else

 

The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Amit Vats & Anr. vs Ajay Jain consisting of Justice C. Hari Shankar reiterates that while adjudicating an application under O₇R₁₁ CPC, the Court is entitled to look only at the averments in the plaint, read with the documents filed therewith, and at nothing else.

Facts

This petition was filed under Article 227 assailed order passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge (“the learned ASCJ”) by which the learned ASCJ rejected the application of the petitioner, as the defendant in the said suit, under O₇R₁₁ CPC seeking dismissal of the suit instituted by the respondent against the petitioners.

Contentions Made

Petitioner: It was contended that the plaint was bad for want of a cause of action and barred by law for the time being in force.

 

Observations of the Court

After hearing the contentions by both the parties, the bench noted that while adjudicating an application under O₇R₁₁ CPC, the Court is entitled to look only at the averments in the plaint, read with the documents filed therewith, and at nothing else. If the averments in the plaint read with the documents filed with the plaint, do not make out a case for rejecting a plaint on any of the grounds envisaged by O₇R₁₁, the application must fail. It also noted that in undertaking the above exercise, the Court must view the plaint holistically, considering all the averments in the plaint, which must be “read as a whole”.

It concurred with the learned ASCJ’s decision that, read as a whole, the plaint could not be said to be bad for want of a cause of action or as barred by any law for the time being in force. 

 

Judgment

The Bench concluded that no occasion rose to interfere with the impugned order which was accordingly upheld. The petition was accordingly dismissed. It also clarified that it had not examined the merits of the case and the observations in this order were to be treated as restricted to examine whether a case for rejection of the plaint under O₇R₁₁CPC existed or did not exist. 

Read Judgment;

 

Social media is bold. 

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!   

We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure