Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Church Christ For Order VII Rule 11
Church Christ For Order VII Rule 11
Versus
JUDGMENT
P. Sathasivam, J.
1) Leave granted.
Bench of the High Court while rejecting OSA Nos. 101 and 102
of 2006 allowed the appeal being OSA No. 100 of 2006 filed by
1
Page 1
against the appellant herein (1st defendant in the suit) by the
3) Brief facts:
the owner of the property situated at Door No. 35, Lock Street,
2
Page 2
(b) Questioning the said cancellation, the 2nd defendant
respondent herein filed C.S. No. 915 of 1994 on the file of the
(MoU) was entered into between the respondent herein and 2nd
portion of the property, viz., 28 grounds and 1952 sq. ft. to the
3
Page 3
C.S. No. 115 of 2005 for specific performance of the agreement
(e) The learned single Judge of the High Court rejected the
single Judge.
4
Page 4
applications for amendment and for interim injunction, allowed
the Code for rejection of the plaint on the ground that it does
5
Page 5
Order VII Rule 11 of the Code:
It is clear from the above that where the plaint does not
6
Page 6
same. A reading of the above provision also makes it clear that
any stage of the suit either before registering the plaint or after
under:
Court has to look into the averments in the plaint and the
7
Page 7
statement are immaterial and it is the duty of the Court to
are the averments in the plaint. At that stage, the pleas taken
Co. Ltd. vs. Ganesh Property (1998) 7 SCC 184 and Mayar
(H.K.) Ltd. and Others vs. Owners & Parties, Vessel M.V.
VII Rule 11 and the duty of the trial Court in considering such
application, this Court has reminded the trial Judges with the
following observation:
8
Page 8
imperatively on examining the party at the first hearing so
that bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage.
The Penal Code is also resourceful enough to meet such
men, (Cr.XI) and must be triggered against them…..”
duty of the trial Judge to exercise his power under Order VII
Cause of Action:
which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff
9
Page 9
of action must include some act done by the defendant since
accrue.
1
Page 10
It is mandatory that in order to get relief, the plaintiff has to
filed for the relief for specific performance, the Court has to be
Order VII Rule 11(a) and 11(d), the Court has to satisfy that
1
Page 11
has the necessary authority under the power of attorney.
case on hand, only the agreement between the plaintiff and the
second defendant has been filed along with the plaint under
such explanation even for not filing the registration copy of the
1
Page 12
of the 1st defendant executed the agreement of sale. In spite of
with the plaint nor the terms thereof have been set out in the
terms are not set out in the plaint but referred to in the plaint,
169.
Power of Attorney:
1
Page 13
the document before the Registrar. A perusal of the power of
1
Page 14
52. Execution of a power of attorney in terms of the
provisions of the Contract Act as also the Powers of Attorney
Act is valid. A power of attorney, we have noticed
hereinbefore, is executed by the donor so as to enable the
donee to act on his behalf. Except in cases where power of
attorney is coupled with interest, it is revocable. The donee
in exercise of his power under such power of attorney only
acts in place of the donor subject of course to the powers
granted to him by reason thereof. He cannot use the power
of attorney for his own benefit. He acts in a fiduciary
capacity. Any act of infidelity or breach of trust is a matter
between the donor and the donee.”
An attorney-holder may however execute a deed of
conveyance in exercise of the power granted under the power
of attorney and convey title on behalf of the grantor.”
of the terms the agent derives a right to use his name and all
avers that the 2nd defendant is the agreement holder of the 1st
pointed out that the date of agreement is also not given in the
1
Page 15
requirement and if the date is one which attracts the bar of
the appellant that in order to get over the bar of limitation all
Madras Weekly Notes 1158, 1159. The same view has been
Madras Law Journal 243, 248, 249 paras 11-13. The similar
310.
1
Page 16
Non-joinder of Defendant No. 2 in the application filed
under Order VII Rule 11
stand taken by the appellant, who has filed the application for
held that the plaint has not shown a complete cause of action
1
Page 17
defendant or on behalf of the 1st defendant. To reject the plaint
Bhai (supra) held that the plaint can be rejected even before
the trial Court can exercise its power under Order VII Rule 11
of the Code at any stage of the suit i.e. before registering the
agree with the said view and reiterate the same. On the other
taken in the trial Court itself so that the plaintiff may have an
raised in this Court for the first time. This position has been
party cannot be raised for the first time before this Court if the
1
Page 18
same was not raised before the trial Court and has not
objection is raised for the first time before this Court, the
18) Apart from the above aspect, in the case on hand, the
party at all.
1
Page 19
Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 13.02.1997. It is
brought to our notice that it is the counsel for the plaintiff who
does not apply to the facts of the present case where the
2
Page 20
part. On the other hand, the 1st defendant has prayed for
rejection of the plaint as a whole for the reason that it does not
that this contention was not raised before the High Court and
Order VII Rule 11, Rule 14(1) and Rule 14(2), Form Nos. 47
to the 2nd defendant in the suit and rightly rejected the plaint
2
Page 21
We are unable to agree with the reasoning of the Division
High Court in OSA No. 100 of 2006 is set aside and the order
...…………….…………………………J.
(P. SATHASIVAM)
.…....…………………………………J.
(J. CHELAMESWAR)
NEW DELHI;
JULY 03, 2012.
2
Page 22