The Central Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors. versus Lala J.R. Education Society and Ors. — Supreme Court (2016) — LawSathi Research

The Central Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors. versus Lala J.R. Education Society and Ors. — Supreme Court (2016) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal dismissed with no costs; however, the appellants were permitted to raise a preliminary issue on the maintainability of the suit, which the trial court shall deal with in accordance with law before proceeding with the trial.

Issue for consideration

On an application under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC, may the Civil Court look beyond the pleadings in the plaint, e.g., at the written statement or other documents? +2 more

Court's answer

On an application filed under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC, the Civil Court can only see the pleadings in the plaint and not anything else, including the written statement.

Ratio / Principle

Where the main grievance urged in the plaint is that the procedure under the Act has not been followed, the plaintiff is entitled to file a suit, as held by this Court in Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1968) 3 SCR 662.

Key takeaways

Rejection of a plaint on institutional grounds is different from dismissal of a suit at pre-trial stage on the ground of maintainability.ratio¶¶29
For dismissal on a preliminary issue, the Court is entitled and liable to look into the entire documents including those furnished by the defendant.ratio¶¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order VII, Rule 11 — Rejection of plaint — On an application under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC, the Civil Court can only see the pleadings in the plaint and not anything else, including the written statement. Rejection of a plaint on institutional grounds is different from dismissal of a suit at pre-trial stage on the ground of maintainability; for dismissal on a preliminary issue, the Court is entitled and liable to look into the entire documents including those furnished by the defendant. Where the main grievance in the plaint is that the procedure under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 has not been followed, the plaintiff is entitled to file a suit (Dhulabhai v. State of M.P., (1968) 3 SCR 662, relied on), notwithstanding the plea of bar under Section 7L(4) of that Act. Appeal by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner dismissed, with liberty to raise a preliminary issue on the maintainability of the suit before the trial court, to be decided in accordance with law before trial proceeds. No costs.

[2016] 5 S.C.R. 406

A THE CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, NEW DELHI AND ORS.

v.

LALA J.R. EDUCATION SOCIETY AND ORS.

B

(Civil Appeal No. 9840of2016)

SEPTEMBER 26, 2016

[KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - 0. VII, r.11 - Rejection of Plaint - Dismissal of suit - Civil suit filed by respondents - c Application of appellant u/O. VIL r.11 rejected - Appellant seeking dismissal of sui-t at the threshold, stating crucial facts were suppressed in plaint - Held: On an application filed u/ 0. V/Lr.11,C.P.C, the Civil court can only see the pleadings in the plaint and not anything else including written statement - Rejection D of plaint on institutional grounds is different from dismissal of a . suit at pre-trial stage on the ground of maintainability- For dismissal on a preliminary issue, the Court is entitled and liable to look into entire documents including those furnished by the defendant - Appeal dismissed, however appellant permitted to raise a preliminary issue on the maintainability of the suit before the trial court.

E

Dhulabhai and Others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. (1968) 3 SCR 662 - referred to.

Case Law Reference

F

(1968) 3 SCR 662 referred to Para6

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9840 of2016.

From the Judgment and Order dated 02.02.2016 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in C.R. No. 1922of2013 (0 & M). G Jojo Jose, Shishir Pinaki, Raj iv Kumar Sinha, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Ad vs. for the Appellants.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KURIAN, J. 1. Delay condoned.

H 2. Leave granted.

406

407

CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMNR., NEW DELHI v. LALA J. R. EDUCATION SOCIETY [KURIAN, J.]

Appellants are aggrieved since the application filed under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC has been rejected.

According to the appellants, the respondents having exhausted all the remedies under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, cannot thereafter approach the Civil Court, which is barred under Section 7L(4) of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

A

B

On an application filed under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC, the Civil Court can only see the pleadings in the plaint and not anything else including written statement.

6.The main grievance urged in .the plaint is that the procedure under the Act has not been followed and, therefore, the appellants are entitled to file a suit. If that be so, the plaintiff is entitled to file a suit, as held by this Court in the case of Dllulabliai tmd Others Vs. Tile State of Madhya Prtuleslt <tnd Anr. reported in (1968) 3 SCR 662.

According to the appellants, the respondents have suppressed crucial facts in the plaint, which if seen, the suit is only to be dismissed at the threshold. Rejection of a plaint on institutional grounds is different from dismissal ofa suit at pre-trial stage on the ground of maintainability. For dismissal on a preliminary issue, the Court is entitled and liable to look into the entire documents including those furnished by the defendant.

c

D

E

In view of the above observations, the appeal is dismissed.

Howev~r, we permit the appellants to raise a preliminary issue on the maintainability of the suit, in which case, before proceeding with the trial, the trial court shall deal with the same in accordance with law.

No costs.

Ankit Gyan

Appeal dismissed.

F