सिविल प्रक्रिया संहिता (सीपीसी), 1908 का आदेश VII नियम 11, एक वादपत्र को अस्वीकार करने के लिए आधार निर्धारित करता है। आधार में कार्रवाई के कारण का खुलासा न करना शामिल है; डुप्लिकेट में गैर-फाइलिंग; और जहां वाद किसी कानून द्वारा वर्जित प्रतीत होता है।
निर्णय एक वादपत्र की अस्वीकृति के आधार और आदेश VII नियम 11 के तहत निर्धारित प्रावधान की प्रकृति के बारे में विस्तार से बताते हैं। अदालत के अनुसार, एक वादपत्र को अस्वीकार करने का प्रावधान अनिवार्य है और किसी भी आधार के अस्तित्व की वजह से इसकी अस्वीकृति होगी।
1. क्या कोई वाद पत्र खारिज किया जा सकता है यदि इसके तहत मांगी गई राहतें खारिज होने के लिए उत्तरदायी हैं?
2. यदि परिसीमा कानून और तथ्य का मिश्रित प्रश्न है तो क्या किसी वाद को खारिज किया जा सकता है?
3. क्या न्यायिक निर्णय किसी वाद को खारिज करने का आधार है?
4. क्या आदेश VII नियम 11 का प्रावधान प्रकृति में अनिवार्य है?
सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने कहा है कि अगर कोई अदालत फैसला करती है कि वादी को कानून के तहत वादी को कोई भी राहत नहीं दी जा सकती है, तो वादी को खारिज कर दिया जाना चाहिए क्योंकि यह तुच्छ है और न्यायिक समय बर्बाद करता है।
सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने फैसला दिया है कि यदि परिसीमन का मुद्दा कानून और तथ्य का मिश्रित प्रश्न है, तो सिविल प्रक्रिया संहिता के आदेश VII नियम 11 (डी) के तहत एक वाद को खारिज नहीं किया जा सकता है।
सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने कहा कि न्यायिक प्रक्रिया संहिता के आदेश VII नियम 11 (डी) के तहत एक वादी को खारिज करने के आधार के रूप में न्यायिकता का उपयोग नहीं किया जा सकता है यदि वादी किसी भी तथ्य का खुलासा नहीं करता है जिससे एक उचित व्यक्ति को यह विश्वास हो जाए कि यह है रेस ज्यूडिकाटा सिद्धांतों द्वारा बहिष्कृत।
सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने फैसला सुनाया है कि वादी की अस्वीकृति पर सिविल प्रक्रिया संहिता के खंड के आदेश VII नियम 11 प्रकृति में अनिवार्य है क्योंकि यह निर्धारित करता है कि "याचिका खारिज कर दी जाएगी [...]।" अदालत के पास वादी को खारिज करने के अलावा कोई विकल्प नहीं है यदि वह कार्रवाई का कारण नहीं बताता है या यदि शिकायत निषिद्ध है या कानून द्वारा वर्जित है।
Supreme Court of India
Rajendra Bajoria vs Hemant Kumar Jalan on 21 September, 2021
Author: B.R. Gavai
Bench: L. Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna, B.R. Gavai
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 58195822 OF 2021
[Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 27792782 of 2019]
RAJENDRA BAJORIA AND OTHERS ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
HEMANT KUMAR JALAN AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals challenge the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta dated 14 th September 2018, thereby allowing the appeals being APO Nos. 491 and 520 of 2017 filed by the respondentsdefendants, challenging the order passed by the Single Judge of the High Court of Calcutta dated 22nd September 2017. Vide the said order dated 22nd September 2017, the Single Judge had dismissed G.A. Nos.1688 and 1571 of 2017 filed by the original defendants, seeking dismissal of the suit, alternatively for rejection of the plaint as well as for revocation of the leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent in the instant suit being C.S. No.79 of 2017.
3. A partnership firm namely ‘Soorajmull Nagarmull’ (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the partnership firm’) was constituted under a Deed of Partnership dated 6th December 1943. Baijnath Jalan, Mohanlal Jalan, Babulal Jalan, Sewbhagwan Jalan, Keshabdeo Jalan, Nandkishore Jalan, Deokinandan Jalan, Chiranjilal Bajoria and Kishorilal Jalan were the partners in the partnership firm. It is not in dispute that none of the partners are alive. Plaintiff Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the sons of Late Chiranjilal Bajoria, who died on 31 st December 1981. Plaintiff Nos. 4 and 5 are the sons of Late Deokinandan Jalan, who died on 12th July 1997. Plaintiff No. 6 is the son of Late Mohanlal Jalan, who died on 1st May 1982. The defendants are the legal heirs of the other original partners in the partnership firm.
4. A civil suit being C.S. No. 79 of 2017 came to be filed by the plaintiffs before the Calcutta High Court seeking, inter alia, the following reliefs: “(a) Decree for declaration that the plaintiffs along with the defendants are entitled to the assets and properties of the firm "Soorajmull Nagarmull" as the heirs of the original partners of the reconstituted firm under the partnership deed dated 6 December, th 1943, in the share of the said original partners as mentioned in paragraph 3 above;
(b) Decree for declaration that the plaintiffs along with the defendants are consequently entitled to represent the firm in all proceedings before the concerned authorities of the State of Bihar for the acquisition of its Bhagalpur land;
(c) Decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant No.1 or any of the other defendants from in any manner representing or holding themselves out to be the authorised representative of the firm or the repository of all its authority, moneys assets and properties or from seeking to represent the firm in its dealings and transactions in respect of any of its assets and properties including the acquisition proceeding of the firm's Bhagalpur land or from receiving any monies on behalf of the firm, whether on account of compensation for its Bhagalpur land or otherwise;
(d) Decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendant No. 1 to disclose full particulars of all assets and properties of the firm, full particulars of all its dealings and transactions including any dealing or transaction concerning any asset or property of the firm, and full accounts of the firm for the purpose of its dissolution;
(e) Decree for the dissolution of the firm Soorajmull Nagarmull and for the winding up of its affairs upon realising the assets and properties of the firm, collecting all moneys due to the firm, applying the same in paying the debts of the firm, if any, in paying the capital contributed by any partner and thereafter by dividing the residue amongst the heirs of the original partners in the shares to which they were entitled to the profits of the firm in terms of the Partnership Deed dated 6th December, 1943."
5. In the said suit, the defendants filed two applications being G.A. Nos. 1688 and 1571 of 2017, inter alia, seeking dismissal of the suit, or in the alternative, rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action, and the relief as claimed in the plaint could not be granted. It was also urged on behalf of the defendants that the suit was filed beyond the period of limitation, and as such, was also liable to be rejected on the said ground. The Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 22 nd September 2017, dismissed the said applications. Insofar as the ground with regard to limitation is concerned, the Single Judge found that the issue of limitation was a mixed question of fact and law and did not consider the prayer of the defendants on that ground. Being aggrieved thereby, the original defendants filed appeals being APO Nos. 491 and 520 of 2017 before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment and order dated 14 th September 2018 held that the reliefs, as claimed in the plaint, could not be granted, and therefore, while allowing the appeals, rejected the plaint being C.S. No. 79 of 2017. It, however, observed that, as provided under Order VII Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the “CPC”), the order of rejection of the plaint shall not of its own force preclude the plaintiffs from presenting a fresh plaint in respect of the same cause of action. Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeals.
6. We have heard Shri Gopal Jain, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1, and Shri K.V. Viswanathan and Shri Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2, 3, 7 to 9, 11, 12 and 16 to 21.
7. Shri Gopal Jain, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, submitted that the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta has grossly erred in allowing the appeals and reversing the wellreasoned judgment and order passed by the Single Judge of the High Court of Calcutta. Shri Jain submitted that the Single Judge, after reading the averments in the plaint, had rightly come to the conclusion that the plaint discloses cause of action, and as such, could not be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. He submitted that the Division Bench, in the impugned judgment and order, has almost conducted a minitrial to find out as to whether the relief as claimed in the plaint could be granted or not. He submitted that such an exercise is impermissible while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. The learned Senior Counsel, relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead Through Legal Representatives and Others1, submitted that the power conferred on the court to terminate a civil action is a drastic one. He submitted that such a power cannot be routinely exercised. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that for finding out as to whether the cause of action exists or not, it is necessary to read the averments made in the plaint in their entirety and not in piecemeal. Shri Jain, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment and order is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.
नीचे दिए गए बटन पर क्लिक करके पूरा निर्णय डाउनलोड करें >>
मुकदमा दायर करना मुकदमा शुरू करने के लिए एक आवश्यकता है। यह अनिवार्य रूप से दावों का एक बयान है जिसे अदालत तथ्यों के भंडार के रूप में मानती है। नतीजतन, प्रत्येक अदालत को वादी की जांच करने और यह निर्धारित करने की आवश्यकता होती है कि यह स्वीकार्य है या नहीं।
निर्णय नागरिक कानूनों पर चर्चा करते हैं। सीपीसी का आदेश VII नियम 11 कुछ ऐसे आधारों को निर्धारित करता है जिन पर एक वाद खारिज किया जा सकता है। प्रावधान अनिवार्य है और यदि वादी नियम के तहत निर्धारित किसी भी आधार से युक्त प्रतीत होता है, तो अदालत ऐसे वादपत्र को खारिज कर देगी।
दीवानी मुकदमा शुरू करना एक लंबी, कठिन और तकनीकी प्रक्रिया हो सकती है, इसलिए यह अनुशंसा की जाती है कि आप एक सिविल वकील को नियुक्त करें। एक सिविल वकील इस क्षेत्र में एक विशेषज्ञ है और यह सुनिश्चित करने के लिए कि यह स्वीकार्य है, वादपत्र तैयार करने की प्रक्रिया में आपकी सहायता और मार्गदर्शन करेगा। वे आपका मामला दर्ज करने, ड्राफ्ट और कागजी कार्रवाई बनाने, अदालत में आपकी वकालत करने और सबूत इकट्ठा करने में आपकी सहायता करेंगे। नतीजतन, एक वकील की सलाह महत्वपूर्ण है।
