Partial Bar Of Some Reliefs Does Not Warrant Rejection Of Plaint

Partial Bar Of Some Reliefs Does Not Warrant Rejection Of Plaint

Supreme Court for the first time held that a plaint cannot be partially rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) if one of the reliefs sought is barred by law, when other reliefs are valid and within the jurisdiction of the court. The order was passed by a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan in a case concerning the SARFAESI Act.Plaintiff filed a suit seeking three specific reliefs relating to ownership and title of some asset used as collateral to an extensive bank loan. It was found that two of these reliefs were found to be valid, however the third one of restoration of possession under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act was rejected and was held to be hit by bar of law as the same should have been filed with the DRT and not the Civil Court.In order to prove its point, the court found that in a situation where one relief (here Relief A) is found valid and the other one (here Relief B) isfound barred, the court, while deciding on an order VII Rule 11 application should not make adverse comments with respect to the relief B in its judgment. The court noted that it cannot partially reject a plaint and, therefore, if any relief is available, the plaint has to be allowed and cannot be rejected only on basis that the relief is barred. The ruling makes clear that: If one relief is maintainable, a plaint cannot be rejected in a civil court. The court also has the jurisdiction to rule on valid claims when individual claims are barred on other legal grounds. This judgment supports the principle that the overview of plaints should examine all of the assertions established and emphasizes procedural fairness in civil cases.

Find Lawyers In Your City

Connect with Best Lawyers at your location