While deciding an application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the court is required to take the averments made therein to be correct

To set the tempo, we may start by referring to the legal position. It is well settled that a plaint can be rejected on any of the grounds enumerated under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. It is equally well settled that on going through an application moved under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the court is required to examine the plaint as a whole and take the averments made therein to be correct. If on a reading of the plaint, a cause of action is made out, then the plaint cannot be rejected. While dealing with an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the court must forebear from going into disputed questions of facts including the defence taken by the defendant in his written statement or his application for rejection of the plaint. [Refer: Inspiration Clothes & U. v. Collby International Ltd., 88 (2000) DLT 769; Tilak Raj Bhagat v. Ranjit Kaur, 159 (2009) DLT 470; Bhau Ram v. Janak Singh, V (2012) SLT 536; Tilak Raj Bhagat v. Ranjit Kaur, 2012 (5) AD (Del) 186; Indian City Properties Ltd. v. Vimla Singh] 198 (2013) DLT 432; and Razia Begum v. DDA 215 (2014) DLT 290 (DB)].[Para No.14]

    It may also be emphasized that for deciding an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the court must not be selective in picking upon the averments made in the plaint and read them in isolation. Instead, a meaningful reading of the entire plaint must be conducted for the court to satisfy itself as to whether the averments made therein, if taken to be correct in their entirety, would result in a decree being passed. The manner of examination which a court is expected to undertake for scrutinizing the plaint and the documents filed to decide an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, have been discussed by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions including in T. Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal & Anr., reported as 1977 (4) SCC 467, Popat and Kotecha Property vs. State Bank of India Staff Association reported as (2005) 7 SCC 510 and Hardesh Ores Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s. Hede & Company reported as 2007 (5) SCC 614. [Para No.15]

    In Popat and Kotecha Property (supra), the Supreme Court observed as under:

"10. Clause (d) of Order 7 Rule 11 speaks of suit, as appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. Disputed questions cannot be decided at the time of considering an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 applies in those cases only where the statement made by the plaintiff in the plaint, without any doubt or dispute shows that the suit is barred by any law in force.

19. There cannot be any compartmentalisation, dissection, segregation and inversions of the language of various paragraphs in the plaint. If such a course is adopted it would run counter to the cardinal canon of interpretation according to which a pleading has to be read as a whole to ascertain its true import. It is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage and to read it out of the context in isolation. Although it is the substance and not merely the form that has to be looked into, the pleading has to be construed as it stands without addition or subtraction of words or change of its apparent grammatical sense. The intention of the party concerned is to be gathered primarily from the tenor and terms of his pleadings taken as a whole. At the same time it should be borne in mind that no pedantic approach should be adopted to defeat justice on hair-splitting technicalities." (emphasis added)[Para No.16]

Facts stated in plaint has to be presume correct while deciding application under Order 7 Rule 11

In a nut shell, it can be said that for deciding whether the plaint discloses cause of action or not, the court has to see only the averments in the plaint and the accompanying documents relied upon in the plaint and the facts elicited from the plaintiff by examining him under Order 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. For the purpose of deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 for rejecting the plaint, the court has also to presume the facts stated in the plaint as correct.

    In the instant matter,the court below rejected the application moved by the appellant under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. read with section 151 C.P.C. with the following observations:-

"जहाँ तक प्रथम आपत्ति का प्रश्न है आदेश-7 नियम-11 में यह प्रावधान है कि जहाँ वाद पत्र हेतुक प्रकट नहीं करता है वहां वाद पत्र नामंजूर कर दिया जायेगा | वादी द्वारा प्रस्तुत दावे के अवलोकन से यह स्पष्ट है कि वाद पत्र कागज संख्या ए -3 के पैरा 49 में वादी का वाद कारण को करमवार अंकित किया है जिस पर प्रतिवादिनी का कथन है कि वह बिना आधार के और पूर्णतया असत्य है | वादी द्वारा प्रस्तुत वाद कारण सत्य है अथवा असत्य है यह साक्षयोपरांत ही तय हो सकता है | धारा 7 नियम 11 के अधीन वाद पत्र की अपेक्षा केवल वाद हेतुक प्रकट करना है न की इस स्तर पर सत्यता अथवा असत्यता परिलक्षित होनी है | चुकिं वाद पत्र वाद हेतुक प्रकट करता है ऐसे स्थिति में आदेश-7 नियम-11 के अधीन वाद पत्र नामंजूर किये जाने का कोई औचित्य आधार नहीं है |"

    Keeping in view the observations made by the court below while rejecting the application of the appellant under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. read with section 151 C.P.C. as well as the settled legal proposition of law on the point in issue that the plaint filed by the plaintiff can only be rejected when the same is barred by any law or no cause of action has accrued to the plaintiff for filing the same.

Bar of period of limitation is a mix question of facts and law

Plaint can not be rejected on the ground of bar by limitation

   Whether plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC if defendant claims the suit to be barred by limitations and disputes the time of accrual of cause of action?

Held:

   Plain can not be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. if accrual of cause of action as mentioned in the plaint is disputed to be beyond period of limitation.

   Genuineness of assertion in respect of accrual of cause of action is a mix question of facts and law.

Mere service of notice would not give rise to a cause of action

Cause of action' implies a right to sue. The material facts which are imperative for the suitor to allege and prove constitutes the cause of action. It has been interpreted to mean that every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. [Para No.20]

   As cause of action is the bundle of facts to examine the issue of jurisdiction it is necessary that one of the interlinked fact must have occurred in a place where the case has been instituted. All necessary facts must form an integral part of the cause of action. The fact must have direct relevance in the lis involved. It is not that every fact pleaded can give rise to a cause of action so as to confer jurisdiction on the Court in whose territorial jurisdiction it has occurred.[Para No.21]

No bar of res judicata to second suit for eviction of tenant

Landlord filed suit for eviction on the grounds of bona fide requirement, erection of unauthorized permanent structures, change of user, and unlawful subletting - Suit dismissed - Appeal  was also unsuccessful - After less than three months, the landlord issued a "notice for possession" to the tenant and again filed second suit for eviction on the grounds of bona fide requirement, arrears of rent, and permanent construction on the suit premises

Is the second suit stand barred by res judicata and Section  12 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 ("the Bombay Rent Act")?

True, subsequent events may affect the suit outcome. For that, either party to the suit should bring to the court's notice those later developments. For that even the amended Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC provides. Otherwise, the court itself, in the interest of justice and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, may take note of those developments. But law does not compel a person to invariably bring on record all the later developments through amendment. If the later developments provide an independent cause of action, the party's right to a fresh legal remedy remains intact. This proposition applies with more rigour if the cause of action is recurring.[Para No.54]

   Default in rent remittance provides recurring cause of action. Every successive default provides an independent cause of action.

Later developments may affect that cause of action if they are duly brought on record; otherwise, they provide further independent cause of action. Even the doctrine of lis pendens does not defeat the suitor's independent right to sue. It is only a matter of prudence and convenience that all the related facts are brought under one umbrella of adjudication. More particularly, if the cause of action is recurring, each instance of recurrence provides an independent cause of action.