Dismissed¶5

Ms M.R. Group through Its Proprietor Junaid Khan Javeed Khan v. Asma Parveen Mohd Hamed Ali

Bombay HC27 Jan 2025CRA/121/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench; CRA No. 121 of 2024; S.G. Chapalgaonkar, J.; Order 7 Rule 11 CPC rejection of plaint; Rule 2 of Order 37 CPC summary suit averments; Summary Civil Suit No. 521 of 2020; negotiable instrument; notarized documents; cause of action 27.11.2020; Civil Judge (S.D.) Aurangabad; revision application rejected 27.01.2025.

What did the court decide?

A plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC only where one or more of the enumerated clauses of Rule 11 are attracted: (a) absence of cause of action, (b) undervaluation of the suit, (c) non-payment of court fees despite directions, and (d) plaint barred by law on its own statements. ¶4

Ms M.R. Group through Its Proprietor Junaid Khan Javeed Khan Vs Asma Parveen Mohd Hamed Ali — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶5

Issue for consideration

Whether omission from the plaint of the specific averments/stipulations required by Rule 2 of Order 37 CPC (that the suit is filed under Order 37 and no relief outside its ambit is claimed) is a valid ground for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

¶3

Court's answer

¶4

Ratio / Principle

Non-observance of the requirement of Rule 2 of Order 37 may be a good ground in the trial of the suit, but such an objection cannot be entertained under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

¶5

Key takeaways

On plain reading, the plaint gives the necessary details for a summary trial: particulars of the transaction, the negotiable instrument issued by the defendant coupled with notarized documents forming part of the plaint, and a specific paragraph on cause of action dated 27.11.2020; accordingly no case for interference with the trial court's order was made out.ratio¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Application by the defendants against the trial court's refusal to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in a summary suit, on the ground that the plaint lacked the specific averments mandated by Rule 2 of Order 37 CPC. Held: rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 is confined to the enumerated grounds (absence of cause of action, undervaluation, non-payment of court fees despite directions, or plaint barred by law on its own statements); non-compliance with Rule 2 of Order 37 may be urged at the trial but is not a ground for rejection of the plaint. The plaint disclosed the transaction details, the negotiable instrument issued by the defendant with notarized documents, and a specific cause-of-action paragraph dated 27.11.2020. Civil Revision Application rejected.

¶1

2025:BHC-AUG:2568

¶2

{1} 37 SR.NO..odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRA NO. 121 OF 2024

¶5

M/s. M.R. Group Through Its Proprietor Junaid Khan Javeed Khan

¶6

….Petitioner

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Asma Parveen Mohd Hamed Ali

¶9

…..Respondent

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. A.S. Kulkarni h/f. Mr. Jadhav Satej S Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Sanket S. Kulkarni, Advocate a/w. Akhilesh Tripathi

¶11

CORAM : S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

¶12

DATE : 27TH JANUARY, 2025.

¶13

O R D E R :-

¶14

Respondent/plaintiff instituted Summary Civil Suit No. 521 of 2020 before the Civil Judge (S.D.), Aurangabad seeking a decree of recovery of amount of Rs. 5,41,118/- from the defendant. Defendant caused appearance in the suit and filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.,C. seeking rejecetion of plaint, firstly on the ground that averments in the plaint are vague and does not contain mandatory clauses in tune with Order 37 of C.P.C. Further, the summary suit in its form would not be maintainable for want of necessary stipulations contained in Rule 2 of Order 37.

¶15

After considering rival submissions, the trial court rejected the application of defendants vide order dated 1.11.2024. Mr. Ashutosh Kulkarni, learned advocate for the applicant invites attention of this

¶16

37 SR.NO..odt

¶17

Court to Rule 2 of Order 37, which requires that when plaintiff desires to proceed under said clause, he shall incorporate specific averment to the effect that suit is filed under this Order and no relief which does not fall within the ambit of this rule, has been claimed. Such stipulations should be immediately below the number of suit in the title clause.

¶18

Mr. Ashutosh Kulkarni, invites attention of this Court to the pleadings of plaintiff, particularly, claim clause and submits that the aforesaid stipulations are absent, therefore, suit could not have been entertained.

¶19

Having considered submissions advanced, indisputably, defendants moved application invoking Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC seeking rejection of plaint. The Civil Court can reject the plaint only when any one or multiple clauses of Rule 11 of Order 7 is shown to have been attracted; namely,

¶20

(a) Absence of cause of action

¶21

(b) under valuation of the suit

¶22

¶23

and

¶24

(d) When, on the basis of statements made in the plaint itself, plaint can be said to be barred by law.

¶25

Non observance of the requirement of Rule 2 of Order 37 may be a good ground in the trial of the suit, however, it is difficult to hold that such objection can be entertained under Order 7 Rule 11 of CP.C. Plain reading of the plaint would show that plaintiff has given necessary details required for a summary trial of the suit. As rightly

¶26

{3}

¶27

37 SR.NO..odt

¶28

observed by the trial court, the plaintiff has mentioned details of the transaction between the parties. The negotiable instrument issued by defendant, coupled with notarized documents, depicting such transaction is made part of the plaint. Plaintiff has specifically employed a paragraph as regards to cause of action dated 27.11.2020. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference with the impugned order. In result, Civil Revision Application stands rejected.

¶29

[S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J]

¶30

grt/-

Ms M.R. Group through Its Proprietor Junaid Khan Javeed Khan v. Asma Parveen Mohd Hamed Ali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms M.R. Group through Its Proprietor Junaid Khan Javeed Khan v. Asma Parveen Mohd Hamed Ali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akshaykumar Bharatbhai Lohar and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Edelweiss Arc Ltd. through Nikhil Narayan Deshmukh Vs Rajendra Digambarsa Shete and Others

Chola Mandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Hemlata Hasmukh Jain and 5 Others

Shalan Dhondiba Satpute vs the Additional Divisional Commissioner 2AND Others

Sangita Sanjay Suryavanshi and Ors. Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. through Its Branch Manager and Anr.

National Insurance Company Ltd. through Its Divisional Manager Vs Sangita Sanjay Surayvanshi and Ors.