Non-joinder of necessary party

Non-joinder of necessary party—When the plaintiff itself persists in not impleading a necessary party in spite of objection, the consequences of non joinder may follow—However, the said objection should be taken in the trial Court itself so that the plaintiff may have an opportunity to rectify the defect—The said plea cannot be raised in the Supreme Court for the first time—Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 7 Rule 11.
Click here to download the full text of the judgment

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 7, Rule 11

Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 7, Rule 11—Non-joinder of Defendant No. 2 in the application filed under Order VII Rule 11—Contention that in the application for rejection of plaint, the 1st defendant has not impleaded the 2nd defendant, therefore, the said application is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of the 2nd defendant, who is a necessary party—Held, 2nd defendant is not a necessary party to the application for rejection of plaint—Non-joinder of the 2nd defendant does not affect the merit of the application as the plaintiff alone is a necessary party to the application for rejection of plaint.

Click here to download the full text of the judgment

Suit for specific performance

Suit for specific performance—Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 7 Rule 11(a) & 11(d), Order 7 Rule 6 and Forms 47 and 48 of Appendix A of the Code—Date of agreement not given in plaint—Held, failure to mention date violates the statutory requirement and if the date is one which attracts the bar of limitation, the plaint has to conform to Order VII Rule 6 and specifically plead the ground upon which exemption from limitation is claimed.

Click here to download the full text of the judgment

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 7, Rule 11 read with Order 10

Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 7, Rule 11 read with Order 10—Rejection of plaint—If the allegations are vexatious and meritless and not disclosing a clear right or material(s) to sue, it is the duty of the trial Judge to exercise his power under Order VII Rule 11—If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action as observed by Krishna Iyer J., in T.Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal & Anr., (1977) 4 SCC 467, it should be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the parties under Order X of the Code.

Click here to download the full text of the judgment

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 7, Rule 11

Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 7, Rule 11—Application under Order 7 Rule 11 for rejection of plaint—In order to consider Order VII Rule 11, the Court has to look into the averments in the plaint and the same can be exercised by the trial Court at any stage of the suit—The averments in the written statement are immaterial and it is the duty of the Court to scrutinize the averments/pleas in the plaint—In other words, what needs to be looked into in deciding such an application are the averments in the plaint—At that stage, the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement are wholly irrelevant and the matter is to be decided only on the plaint averments.

Click here to download the full text of the judgment

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 7, Rule 11

Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 7, Rule 11—Power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code can be exercised at any stage of the suit either before registering the plaint or after the issuance of summons to the defendants or at any time before the conclusion of the trial.

Click here to download the full text of the judgment