Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has recently reiterated the principle that the entire averments made in the plaint should be considered before rejecting the suit under order 7 rule 11. The proceedings arose out of an application preferred by the respondent under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which was initially rejected by the Trial Court but came to be allowed by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction.
In the instant case the special Civil Suit No.204/2016 was filed by the appellant in the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Surat submitting inter alia that by deception, a sale-deed came to be obtained on 21.03.2008 under which the appellant purportedly sold away his interest in Block 221 at Survey No.91 situated at Village Bhanodara, District Surat, Gujarat. Though the sale-deed was effected, the appellant continued to be in possession of the property.
Pursuant to the application moved by the respondent original defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, the Trial Court considered the issue and by its order dated 07.03.2017 rejected the prayer. In revision arising therefrom, the High Court by its judgment and order, which was under appeal before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, interfered in the matter and held that in terms of the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, the plaint was required to be rejected.
Supreme court while setting aside the order of the Hon’ble High Court , observed that;
“It is well settled that for the purposes of the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, the entirety of the averments in the plaint have to be taken into account. Going by the version of the appellant as detailed in the plaint, there was an element of deception and fraud which was practised upon him as a result of which the concerned document got entered into. It is also a matter of record that the consideration in respect of the transfer of the property in question was stated to have been paid in cash. Again going by the averments made in the plaint, the information in respect of the transaction came to the knowledge only in the year 2013-2014. According to the assertions in the plaint, the plaintiff-appellant was always in possession of the property. In the entirety of the circumstances, as pleaded in the plaint, the issues raised in the matter were certainly required to be considered on merits.
In our view, the High Court was not right and justified in accepting the prayer and holding that the plaint was required to be rejected. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set-aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court and restore the one that was passed by the Trial Court.”