First Appellate Court, While Examining Validity Of Order Rejecting Plaint, Can See To The Contents Of Plaint & Nothing Beyond: Supreme Court
The Civil Appeals filed before the Supreme Court by the defendants called in question the order passed by the High Court rejecting their writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.
While dealing with the law relating to rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the Supreme Court has explained that in a Regular Appeal pending before the First Appellate Court, the Appellate Court can only examine the validity of the Trial Court's order rejecting the plaint and for the said purpose, the Appellate Court will see to the contents of the plaint and nothing beyond.
The appeals before the Apex Court were filed by the defendants calling in question the order passed by the High Court rejecting their writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution which in turn was preferred against the First Appellate Court's common order allowing an application under Order 11 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the application seeking permission to raise additional grounds in the first appeal.
The Division Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra asserted, “In Regular Appeal pending before the First Appellate Court, the Appellate Court is not enjoined to decide the merits of the controversy. The First Appellate Court will only examine the validity of the Trial Court's order rejecting the plaint. For the said purpose, the Appellate Court will see to the contents of the plaint and nothing beyond. No other documents can be seen by the Trial Court or by the First Appellate Court without examining the issue concerning rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.”
Senior Advocate Shailesh Madiyal represented the Appellant while AOR Mary Vimala Bai P. represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The matter dates back to the year 1926 when the Government of Mysore granted the subject land to one Kurubettappa, father of the first respondent/plaintiff. This land was purchased by the grandmother of the appellants by a registered sale deed. Thereafter, proceedings and suits were instituted by the respondents or her mother assailing the said transaction. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the first respondent's mother’s application under Section 5 of the Karanataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of 1 ‘CPC’ 3 Certain Lands) Act, 1978, seeking restoration of land in her favour. The appellant's petition came to be allowed, setting aside the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner.
The second respondent- Tehsildar passed an order rejecting the prayers of the respondent, observing that the Mutation Register was a genuine entry. The respondent initiated a private complaint against the Special Tehsildar for offences punishable under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and under Section 217 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the Special Tehsildar.
In 2018, the Trial Court dismissed the suit preferred by the first respondent seeking a declaration of the title and a declaration of the judgment as void ab initio as well as for consequential relief of a permanent injunction. Another civil suit bearing O.S. No.434 of 2011 preferred by the Respondent, seeking a declaration that the order passed by the Tehsildar was illegal, was also dismissed. Challenging the order, the first respondent preferred a Regular Appeal. The subject application seeking permission to raise additional grounds in the first appeal had been preferred by the first respondent. The First Appellate Court allowed the application, which was affirmed by the High Court under the impugned order. It was in such circumstances that the appeal came to be filed before the Apex Court.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the proceedings involved in the present case, the Bench found that while allowing the application under Order XI Rule 14 of the CPC, the Trial Court had not adhered to the principles governing the disposal of the application under Order XI Rule 14 of the CPC.
The Bench explained that Order XI Rule 14 of the CPC enables the Court to seek production of the documents during the pendency of the suit. In the case at hand, the suit preferred by the first respondent had already been dismissed by the Trial Court consequent upon the rejection of the plaint while allowing the appellants' application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. The stage for leading the evidence was yet to arrive in the suit.
The Bench said, “In our considered view, the First Appellate Court was unnecessarily influenced by the observation made by this Court while dismissing Criminal Special Leave Petition. This observation would only mean that the Civil Court proceedings shall be determined on its own merits. It nowhere enables the Civil Court (the First Appellate Court herein) to pass an order beyond the scope of Order XI Rule 14 of the CPC. The order passed by the Trial Court as affirmed by the High Court in the impugned order allowing the prayer made by respondent no. 1 for production of Mutation Register is totally misconceived and suffers from an error of exercise of jurisdiction; it deserves to be and is hereby set aside.”
The Bench disposed of the Petition by concluding that there was no fault with the order allowing the first respondent to raise additional grounds in the Regular Appeal.
Cause Title: Sri Shrikanth Ns & Ors. v. K. Munivenkatappa & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 557)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Shailesh Madiyal, AOR Mahesh Thakur, Advocates Anchit Singla, Geetanjali Bedi, Ranvijay Singh Chandel, Anusha R.
Respondent: AOR Mary Vimala Bai P., Advocates Aparna Sharma, Shivanna Gouda Doddamani, Shivana Gouda Doddamani