Filing Petition For Rejection Of Plaint At Belated Stage Of Suit After Closure Of Evidence Is To Be Disapproved: Orissa High Court

The revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), had been filed by the petitioner-Bank seeking the setting aside of an order of rejection of its petition under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 151.

The Single Bench of Justice A.C. Behera said, “Therefore, the grounds raised by the defendant no.2- Bank for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff being the contentious issues in the suit shall be adjudicated by the trial Court on the basis of the pleadings and evidence of the parties and the said issues shall be answered properly and effectively in the judgment of the suit. For which, filing of the petition by the defendant no.2-Bank for rejection of plaint of the plaintiff at a belated stage of the suit vide C.S. No.91 of 2020 after closure of evidence of the plaintiff and defendant no.2-Bank is to be disapproved.”

Advocate Subrat Mishra represented the Petitioner while Advocate Anupam Dash represented the Opposite Parties.

Factual Background

The third defendant had availed a loan from the petitioner-Bank(second defendant), and to secure such loan, the first defendant mortgaged some properties to the Bank, including the suit scheduled properties, as guarantor of the said loan of the third defendant. Due to non-payment of the loan dues, the defendant Bank decided to sell the suit-scheduled mortgaged properties, issuing letters to the other two defendants stating that the secured suit-scheduled properties shall be released subject to the deposit of Rs 3,25,000,000. The plaintiff paid all the outstanding loan dues of the third defendant to the defendant Bank.

When the suit scheduled properties were not released in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff approached the Civil Court by filing a suit against the defendants. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant -Bank filed a petition under Order-7, Rule-11 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C., praying for rejection of the plaint but the same was dismissed. On being aggrieved with the above impugned order, the defendant Bank filed a revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C., being the petitioner against the plaintiff, arraying her as the first Opposite Party and also arraying the first and third defendants as the other two Opposite Parties.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the defendant Bank filed the petition under Order-7, Rule-11 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint when the suit of the plaintiff was at the fag end of its trial. By that time, the evidence from the side of the plaintiff and the first defendant was closed due to ethe xamination and cross-examination of the witnesses of the plaintiff and the first defendant. When the suit was posted for examination of the witnesses from the side of the defendant-Bank at that stage, instead of examining any witness on behalf of the Bank, the defendant Bank filed the petition for rejection of the plaint.

“It is fundamental in law that, a petition for rejection of plaint can be filed by any of the defendants in the suit at any stage of the suit”, the Bench said while also adding, “It is the settled propositions of law that, when the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to decide one relief out of several reliefs in a plaint, the suit is maintainable in the Civil Court, irrespective of the facts, whether other reliefs can be granted or not.”

The Bench also made it clear that a plaint cannot be rejected in part, because the law does not provide for the compartmental rejection of a plaint. It was noted that the parties to the suit, including the defendant Bank after knowing about issues framed covering the grounds in the petition under Order-7, Rule-11 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C., 1908, proceeded with the trial of the suit of the original plaintiff up to the closure of evidence of the plaintiff and the first defendant.

The Bench held, “It is the settled propositions of law that, when there is an issue in the suit, the said issue needs to be decided by the Court in the final judgment of the suit, but, the same would not provide the ground for rejection of plaint under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908. Because, the ground raised by the defendant for rejection of the plaint shall be answered very well in the judgment of that suit after appreciation of the pleadings and evidence of the parties.

Reference was also made to the judgment of the Apex Court in M/s. Bhagya Estate Ventures Pvt. Ltd. vrs. Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd. and another (2024) wherein it was held that there is no reason for the right of the defendant to raise a plea for rejection of the plaint by filing an application under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C. at a far belated stage such as final arguments or nearing conclusion of the trial of the suit. As per the Bench, the grounds raised by the defendant Bank for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff, being the contentious issues in the suit would have to be adjudicated by the trial Court.

It was therefore held that the petition of the defendant Bank under Order-7, Rule-11 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C for rejection of plaint of the plaintiff at the fag end of the trial of the suit was not bona fide. Finding the rejection of the petition of the defendant Bank by the trial court through the impugned order not to be erroneous, the Bench dismissed the revision petition of the Bank and ordered the Trial Court to dispose of the plaintiff’s suit within four months.

Cause Title: UCO Bank, Rourkela Branch, Sector-19 represented through the Branch Head cum-Chief Manager and authorized Officer v. Purnima Agarwal and others (Case No.: CRP No.15 of 2022)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate Subrat Mishra

Opposite Parties: Advocates Anupam Dash, Jagdish Biswal

Click here to read/download Order