✦ Supreme Court of India · 31 Oct 2023

Civil Appeal No. 7413 of 2023 · Supreme Court of India

Civil Appeal No. 7413 of 2023PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, SUDHANSHU DHULIA19 min read

Case at a glance

Decided
31 Oct 2023
Bench
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, SUDHANSHU DHULIA
Neutral citation
2023 INSC 964

Provisions considered

Case journey

Linked proceedings

Earlier proceedings, if any, are not linked in the corpus
Supreme Court of IndiaDate not recorded
SEJAL GLASS LTD v. NAVILAN MERCHANTS PVT. LTD
Linked automatically · not yet reviewed
Supreme Court of IndiaDate not recorded
DAHIBEN v. ARVINDBHAI KALYANJI BHANUSALI

Civil Appeal No. 9519 of 2019

Evidence kept · not yet reviewed
Supreme Court of IndiaDate not recorded
Judgment · Supreme Court

Civil Appeal No. 7413 of 2023

This judgment

Built from judgments in the Courts & Cases corpus and the links detected in their text. Coverage is incomplete — earlier or later proceedings may be missing, so verify against the official record. How Case Journey works

Judgment

Issue for consideration: Correct application of the principle underlying the rejection of plaints u/Or.VII, r.11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to the facts of the case and the legality of rejection of a plaint in part. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.VII, r.11 – Rejection of Plaints – Principle underlying – Application of – Plaintiff s and the Defendants no.1-3 were members of a joint family owning properties mentioned in Schedule A and B of the plaint – Plaintiff s fi led plaint for partition and separate possession – Defendants’ application for rejection of the plaint u/Or.VII, r.11, CPC was dismissed by Trial Court – High Court allowed the application in part, and rejected the Plaint with respect to Schedule-A property observing that the property described therein was sold way back in 1919 via a registered Sale Deed and the Plaintiff s did not deny the sale – Legality: Held: The true test is fi rst to read the plaint meaningfully and as a whole, taking it to be true – Upon such reading, if the plaint discloses a cause of action, then the application u/Or.VII,r.11 must fail – The plaint shall be rejected where it does not disclose a cause of action – In the present case, High Court committed error by examining the merits of the matter – It pre-judged the truth, legality and validity of the sale deed under which the Defendants No. 4 to 14 claim title – High Court could not have anticipated the truth of the averments by assuming that the alleged previous sale of the property is complete or that it has been acted upon – Approach adopted by the High Court is incorrect and contrary 153 to the well-entrenched principles of considering an application u/Or.VII Rule 11 – High Court erred in rejecting the plaint in part with respect to Schedule-A property and permitting the Plaintiff s to prosecute the case only with respect to Schedule-B property – This approach is impermissible – Impugned the judgment passed in revision petition set aside – Application u/Or.VII, r.11 dismissed, the suit even with respect to properties mentioned under Schedule A of the Plaint restored. [Paras 7, 10-13] LISTS OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. 7 r. 11; O. VII r. 11.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Supreme Court of India, on 31 Oct 2023. The bench was PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, SUDHANSHU DHULIA.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

Another 1 relationship is under human verification and not counted above.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Later judgments that treat this case

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Supreme Court of India or eCourts case status (search case no. Civil Appeal No. 7413 of 2023). ← Search more judgments