The Delhi High Court has opined that the power conferred by Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”). could be exercised at any stage of a suit.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prateek Jalan opined that Order VII Rule 11(d) is not limited to statutory prohibitions alone but also encompasses causes of action barred by judicial decisions.
Brief Facts:
The suit revolved around a property located in New Delhi. This property originally belonged to Plaintiff’s paternal grandfather, the late Justice S.C. Manchanda, and his wife, the late Mrs. Usha Manchanda. The property was alleged to be a Hindu Undivided Family Property (“HUF”)
Further, the Plaintiffs asserted their constructive possession of the suit property.
The Plaintiffs filed the suit to seek cancellation of various instruments, a decree of partition and possession of their share in the property, or damages equivalent to the market value of the property. An order of status quo was issued to protect the Plaintiffs' rights regarding the suit property.
Contentions of the Plaintiffs:
It was contended that the actions taken by Defendant to extinguish the Plaintiffs' rights in the HUF property were beyond his authority as the Karta, as they did not serve the estate's benefit or legal necessity. Further, that the alienee was also obligated to investigate the matter of legal necessity when acquiring title to HUF property without the consent of all coparceners.
Contentions of the Defendants:
It was argued that Plaintiff’s subsequent suit for the claimed reliefs constituted an abused process, even if it was assumed that Plaintiff was unaware of some of the transaction details.
The principle of estoppel, arising from the pleadings in the 2012 suit, also barred the Plaintiffs from pursuing the suit. It was contended that the jurisdiction provided by Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC allowed for the rejection of plaints that constituted an abused process, including when the pleadings were inconsistent with the Plaintiffs' prior pleadings.
Observations of the Court:
It was firstly held that the power under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC can be exercised at any stage of a suit. The determination of such an application requires a comprehensive and meaningful reading of the entire plaint, excluding the written statement of the defendants or their defences. Order VII Rule 11(d) applies not only to statutory prohibitions but also to causes of action barred by judicial decisions.
It was ruled that the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC are not exhaustive, and the Court has inherent power to prevent frivolous or vexatious litigation.
Furthermore, the Bench opined that the doctrine of estoppel bars a litigant from making assertions inconsistent with earlier statements relied upon by the other party. The rules of approbate/reprobate, election of causes of action, and acquiescence are all species of estoppel.
A plaint can be rejected on the grounds of estoppel by pleading and acquiescence if it is inconsistent with an earlier plea made in previous proceedings. To examine such questions akin to a plea under Order II Rule 2 of the CPC, the pleadings in the earlier suit must be presented as evidence to demonstrate the identity of the causes of action. The plea of acquiescence requires a party to give up rights of which they have full knowledge, but such a plea is not available in the face of fraud committed by the other party.
The Bench observed that the present case fell within the category where the plaint should be rejected at the initial stage under the grounds stipulated in Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
The decision of the Court:
Based on the aforementioned findings, the Delhi High Court rejected the plaint and dismissed the suit.
Case Title: Sean Dushyant Manchanda & Anr. v Rabia Manchanda & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Suit Original 3277 of 2014
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prateek Jalan
Advocates for Petitioner: Advs. Ms. Tara Ganju, Mr. Sarad Kumar Sunny and Mr. Animesh
Advocates for Respondent: Advs. Mr. Akhil Sibal, Ms. Vidhi Goel and Mr. Krishna Dev Yadav, Mr. Meet Malhotra, Mr. Ravi SS Chauhan, Ms. Palak Singh, Mr. Yogesh Jagia, Mr. Amit Sood, Mr. Chandan Dutta, Ms. Jasmine Damkewala, Ms. Vaishali Sharma, Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
