[Order VII Rule 11 CPC] Courts must read entire pleadings before rejecting a plaint: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday observed that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) 1908, the Court has to go through the entire plaint or pleadings and cannot reject the plaint by reading only few lines/passages and ignoring the other relevant parts [Sri Biswanth Banik and Another v. Smt. Sulanga Bose and Others]..A Division Bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna was hearing an appeal assailing the decision of the Calcutta High Court in this regard. "While considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court has to go through the entire plaint averments and cannot reject the plaint by reading only few lines/passages and ignoring the other relevant parts of the plaint," the Supreme Court said.The High Court had set aside an order passed by the trial court refusing to reject the plaint in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.The trial court had refused to entertain the application for rejection of plaint and had refused to reject the plaint. However, the High Court had rejected the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation and that the suit for a declaration simpliciter under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act would not be maintainable..Before the top Court, the appellants argued that while holding that the suit would be barred by limitation, the High Court failed to consider the entire arguments in the suit and has not considered the arguments in the plaint as a whole.The appellants submitted that the issue with respect to limitation is a mixed question of law and facts and therefore, the High Court ought not to have rejected the plaint on that ground.Moreover, it was also argued that whether the plaintiffs (present appellants) would succeed in getting the relief under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act would have to be considered at the time of trial. Therefore, it was submitted that a suit for declaration under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act cannot be said to be maintainable at all.On the other hand, the respondents had submitted that when once the suit was barred by limitation, the same is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC..The Supreme Court said that only in a case where the suit is barred by limitation on the face of it, can a plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC on the ground of limitation.Relying majorly on its decision in Ram Prakash Gupta v. Rajiv Kumar Gupta and Others, (2007) 10 SCC 59, the top Court observed that rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC by reading only few lines and passages and ignoring the other relevant parts of the plaint is impermissible.Further, the Court was of the view that applying the law laid down in Ram Prakash Gupta v. Rajiv Kumar Gupta to the facts of the instant case on hand and on going through the entire plaint averments, it could not be said that the suit was barred by limitation on the face of it..The apex court, therefore, concluded that the High Court committed a grave error in allowing the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and rejecting the plaint. It, therefore, set aside the order of the High Court and restored the order passed by the trial court..Advocate Ankur Sood appeared for the appellants.Advocate Suman Kumar Dutt appeared for the respondents..[Read Judgment]