RAJENDRA BAJORIA AND ORS V.

HEMANT KUMAR JALAN AND ORS

6.1 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND LIMITATION

(Project Rough Draft)

Submitted by
AKANKSHA BOHRA
UID No.: UG19-08
BA.LL.B.(Hons.)
Year: III Semester: VI

Submitted to
Prof. Manoj Kumar Sharma
Associate Professor of Law

January 2022
MAHARASHTRA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, NAGPUR
TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................3
RELEVANT PROVISION.............................................................................................................................3
STRENGTH OF THE BENCH........................................................................................................................3
FACTS …………………………………………………………………………………………………..3
ISSUES ( BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT IN ITS APPEAL)...........................................................................4
JUDGMENT................................................................................................................................................4
JURISPRUDENCE LAID DOWN..................................................................................................................5
CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................................7
 INTRODUCTION
In Rajendra Bajoria and Ors v. Hemant Kumar Jalan and Ors, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
ruled on the ambit of “rejection of plaint” in a civil matter under the provisions of Order VII
Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The Supreme Court was hearing an appeal
against an order of the Calcutta High Court’s Division Bench admitting an appeal against an
order of the Calcutta High Court’s Single Judge. In the judgement, the Supreme Court
observed that a court should dismiss a plaint if it believes that remedy requested cannot be
provided under the law. To prevent wasting valuable judicial time, it is vital to put an end to
frivolous litigation in such circumstances. The Court stated that Order VII Rule 11 of the
CPC empowers the Court to dismiss a plaint if the plaintiff fails to disclose the cause of
action, and that the Court must not enable the plaintiff to prolong the proceedings
unnecessarily.
The Indian Civil Procedure Code, 1908 contains comprehensive laws regarding the life cycle
of a civil litigation. A court can dismiss a civil or commercial complaint if the plaint is not
satisfied with the grounds specified in Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code. Undervaluation of the
claim, inadequate stamps, litigation being forbidden by law, and so on. One of the most
common reasons for rejection is that the plaint does not state a cause of action. In this
decision, the Supreme Court considered whether a plaint including petitions or reliefs that the
plaintiff could not get could be dismissed because the plaint does not reveal a cause of action.

RELEVANT PROVISION
Order VII Rule 11(d)of the CPC: It states that if a suit is barred by limitation, the plaint of the
case may be rejected. If it is barred by the law of limitation, then the hearing may be
amended. It is the duty of the Court to determine if the non-disclosure of the cause for the
claim or the plaint is barred under any law. Where the plaintiff has shown that the suit was
filed before the time limit of limitation has been met, the provisions of this Order will not be
applicable. Computing limitation period involves law and facts.

STRENGTH OF THE BENCH

Hon’ble Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon’ble Justice BR Gavai

FACTS
 A partnership firm, “Soorajmull Nagarmull”, was constituted under a deed of partnership
dated December 6, 1943.On the demise of all partners, the legal heirs of three partners
 instituted a civil suit before the Single Judge, Calcutta High Court against the legal heirs of
the other partners in the Firm.
 In the Civil Suit, the Plaintiffs prayed for a declaration that the Plaintiffs were entitled to the
assets and properties of the Firm basis their status as legal heirs of the original partners in the
Firm.
 The Defendants filed an application seeking rejection of plaint on the ground that the plaint
did not disclose a cause of action.
 The Single Judge dismissed the application filed by the Defendants vide order dated
September 22, 2017.
 Aggrieved by the order of the Single Judge, the Defendants preferred an appeal before the
Division Bench. The Division Bench vide order dated September 14, 2018,allowed the appeal
thereby rejecting the plaint filed in the Civil Suit.
 Aggrieved by the order of the Division Bench, the Defendants filed the appeal before the
Supreme Court.

ISSUES ( BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT IN ITS APPEAL)

If none of the reliefs claimed under plaint can be granted to the plaintiff under the law,
whether such suit can be allowed to go for trial?

JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court observed that a court has to reject a plaint if it finds that none of the
reliefs sought in it can be granted to the plaintiff under the law. In such a case, it will be
necessary to put an end to the sham litigation so that further judicial time is not wasted, the
bench observed.
While dismissing the appeal, the court further observed:
“20. It could thus be seen that this Court has held that the power conferred on the court to
terminate a civil action is a drastic one, and the conditions enumerated under Order VII Rule
11 of CPC are required to be strictly adhered to. However, under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC,
the duty is cast upon the court to determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action, by
scrutinizing the averments in the plaint, read in conjunction with the documents relied upon,
or whether the suit is barred by any law. This Court has held that the underlying object of
Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is that when a plaint does not disclose a cause of action, the court
would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings. It has been held that
 in such a case, it will be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation so that further judicial
time is not wasted.”
The High Court held that the reading of the averments in the plaint should not be only formal
but also meaningful. If a clever drafting of pleadings has created the illusion of cause of
action, then a meaningful reading would show that the pleadings do not disclose a clear right
to sue and court should exercise its power under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC Of dismissing the
suit. The Court also has to determine, in background of facts, if the relief sought in the plaint
can actually be granted to the plaintiff. If it does not find that the relief can be granted, the
suit should be thrown out at threshold. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the High
Court holding that when a plaintiff does not disclose the cause of action, the court will not
allow the plaintiff to prolong the proceedings, which would result in the wasting of the
Court’s time. Hence, the Court will bring the case to a conclusion. The Apex Court held that
the power to terminate a civil action is drastic, and the conditions under which it can be done
are to be strictly adhered to. However, Order VII Rule 11 of CPC requires the Court to
determine if the plaint reveals a cause of action or not along with analysing documents relied
upon.

JURISPRUDENCE LAID DOWN

The Supreme Court stated that while adjudicating an application for rejection of plaint for
want of cause of action, the court must consider whether the averments in the plaint are
meaningful and not merely formal towards disclosing the requisite cause of action. In this
regard, courts must be wary of clever drafting which might create an illusion of a cause of
action in a suit. Therefore, a court must read the plaint in entirety and engage in a meaningful
reading of the averments to assess if the plaint discloses a clear right to sue. If the same is
absent, the court should reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11.Further, a court must
conclude as to whether the reliefs claimed in the plaint can be granted in the background of
the facts presented in the plaint. It relied on its previous judgment in Pearlite Liners v.
Manorama Sirsi, which held that a suit in which no relief can be granted under law, is liable
to be rejected at the threshold. The Supreme Court did not itself weigh the reliefs claimed by
the Plaintiff, it discussed the findings of the Division Bench in the Impugned Judgment with
respect to each relief as under:
 Declaration that Plaintiffs along with the Defendants are entitled to the Firm’s assets as heirs
of the original partners of Firm.
 Division Bench stated that the underlying law of partnership states that partners of a firm are
entitled only to the profits of the firm and, upon dissolution of the firm, to the surplus of the
sale proceeds of the assets and properties of the firm after meeting the liabilities of the firm.
Particularly, partners do not have any right, title or interest in respect of the assets and
properties of a firm so long as the firm is carrying on business. In this background, the
Division Bench held that Plaintiffs, even as legal heirs of the original partners, cannot
maintain any claim in respect of the assets and properties of the Firm and as a result, the
prayer for such declaration was not maintainable in law.
 Declaration that Plaintiffs along with the Defendants are entitled to represent the Firm in
certain proceedings for acquisition of a land
The Division Bench stated that prayer no. (b) was a consequential relief which could have
only been granted if the first prayer were allowed. Since prayer (a) cannot be granted in law,
prayer (b) was equally not maintainable in law.
 Decree for perpetual injunction restraining Defendants from representing themselves to be
the authorised representative of the Firm
The Division Bench adopted a similar approach for prayer (c) stating the same was a
consequential relief to prayer (a) and (b).
 Decree for mandatory injunction directing Defendant No. 1 to disclose full accounts and
particulars of Firm’s assets, etc for the purpose of its dissolution and (e) Decree for
dissolution of the Firm and for the winding up of its affairs.
The Division Bench stated that under the Partnership Act, only the partners of a firm can seek
dissolution of a firm. Since the Plaintiffs were admittedly not partners of the Firm, the
dissolution of the Firm cannot be ordered by the court at the instance of the Plaintiffs.
Therefore, the Plaintiffs were neither entitled to claim dissolution of the Firm, nor they were
entitled to pray for accounts for the purpose of dissolution of the Firm. With the above
findings, the Division Bench remarked that sending the parties to trial will be a futile exercise
involving costs and time of the parties as well as of the court. As a result, the Division Bench
rejected the plaint for not disclosing any cause of action.
The Supreme Court upheld the above findings of the Division Bench and stated that the
reliefs sought by the Plaintiffs were not maintainable in law. As a result, the Plaint ought to
be rejected under Order VII Rule 7 of the CPC. The Supreme Court further noted that that the
underlying object of Order VII Rule 11 CPC is that if a plaint does not disclose a cause of
action, the court cannot permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings.
It can be observed that while parties generally emphasize on facts and cause of action while
drafting a plaint, lesser attention to prayers and maintainability of reliefs could render the
civil suit / commercial suit vulnerable. Careful analysis of the applicable law and of
maintainability of reliefs are necessary to save the plaint from rejection. Order VII Rule 11 of
the CPC does not include a ground for rejection based on “reliefs”. However, reliefs are inter-
linked with cause of action, and therefore are consumed within the ground relating to
disclosure of cause of action in the plaint. Careful drafting is often considered as a tool to
prevent rejection of plaint. However, since the test for rejection on ground of reliefs is simply
on the touchstone of maintainability in law, it will stand strong against possible workarounds
adopted by way of dexterous drafting in order to establish presence of cause of action in the
plaint.
Often, parties believe that courts will not, and ought not, to engage in a mini-trial while
considering applications for rejection of plaint. However, while courts recognise that the
power to terminate a civil action is drastic and must be carefully exercised, they also
recognise that sham litigations should be ended at the initial stage of the proceedings. Hence,
parties must be aware that an in-depth analysis of cause of action, reliefs and the applicable
law is possible at this stage, particularly when the courts believe that the reliefs are not
maintainable. Additionally, during the first hearing on the application, one needs to be
mindful of the court’s outlook towards the plaint, the cause of action and the reliefs sought in
the plaint. If the court opines that the plaint does not contain maintainable reliefs, recourse is
still available to plaintiffs under the law to prevent rejection of the plaint at this stage.

CONCLUSION
The use of judicial time is precious. Sham litigations do not only tend to waste the time of the
courts but is also detrimental, harming to the parties involved in such cases. It is essential
perquisite for achieving justice that the time allotted for the Courts and cases is utilized in the
most productive manner possible. Thus it can be concluded that in order to address this issue,
the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 has very rightly allowed courts to dismiss a suit at the
threshold without conducting a trial or recording evidence, if it is satisfied that the action
should be terminated on any grounds contained in this provision.