Introduction
The Supreme Court of India clarified the interpretation of Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The Court held that a plaint cannot be rejected merely because one of the reliefs sought is barred by law, as long as other reliefs are maintainable and within the jurisdiction of the civil court.
Facts of the Case
The plaintiff (Smt. Prabha Jain) filed a civil suit seeking three distinct reliefs concerning a property mortgaged to the Central Bank of India as security for a loan. Two reliefs were related to ownership and title declaration, while the third sought restoration of possession of the said property under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The Bank argued that the third relief fell within the exclusive domain of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and thus rendered the entire plaint barred under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC.
Issues for Determination
1. Whether a plaint can be rejected in entirety under Order VII Rule 11 CPC if it includes one relief that is barred by law?
2. Whether civil courts have jurisdiction to entertain a suit when part of the relief falls under a special statute like the SARFAESI Act?
Contentions of the Petitioner
The petitioner argued that the entire suit was barred by law because one of the reliefs sought, i.e., restoration of possession under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, must be adjudicated by the DRT. Relying on Order VII Rule 11(d), they contended that since one of the prayers was barred by a special law, the plaint in its entirety must be rejected.
They further asserted that the presence of a relief outside the jurisdiction of the civil court demonstrated a lack of maintainability and judicial economy warranted dismissal at the threshold.
Contentions of the Respondent
The respondent submitted that the plaint contained other substantial reliefs related to title and ownership, which were well within the jurisdiction of the civil court.
They argued that partial maintainability should not lead to wholesale rejection and that the civil court was competent to adjudicate upon the maintainable reliefs.
They emphasized the principle of severability, asserting that invalidity of one relief does not taint the entire plaint.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court, per Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, rejected the petitioners’ contention and upheld the maintainability of the plaint. The Court made the following key observations:
Order VII Rule 11(d) permits rejection only when the entire suit appears to be barred by law. If even one of the reliefs is prima facie valid and triable, the plaint cannot be rejected.
Citing prior judgments, the bench reiterated that partial rejection of plaints is not permissible under the existing CPC framework. The Court noted that administrative overreach or statutory exclusions, such as under the SARFAESI Act, do not oust jurisdiction for claims not covered by that special law.
The Court found that ownership and title disputes fell within the domain of civil courts, and the mere inclusion of a relief relating to possession under SARFAESI did not invalidate the whole plaint.
Importantly, the Court cautioned against making adverse remarks about specific reliefs in the context of Order VII Rule 11 applications, as it may prejudice a fair trial.
Conclusion
This ruling reinforces the principle of access to justice and the need to avoid premature dismissal of suits that contain triable issues, even if some aspects are barred under special enactments.
