Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1444 (RAJ)

Anjana Maheshwari v. Ratan Lal

2014-08-04

ARUN KUMAR MISHRA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal under Section 96 CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10.01.2012 passed by the learned District Judge, Chittorgarh ('the trial court'), whereby, the plaint filed by the appellant-plaintiff has been rejected under provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 (e) CPC. 2. Despite serve of notice on the respondent twice in this appeal for final disposal, no one has put in appearance and no one is present on behalf of the respondent. 3. The facts in brief may be noticed thus: the appellant-plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,09,000/- from the respondent, inter alia, with the pleadings that for an amount lent to the defendant, the cheque was issued by him and when the cheque was presented before the Bank, the same was dishonoured by the Bank and, therefore, the defendant was liable to make payment of the amount of cheque along with interest @ 12%. 4. A written statement was filed by the respondent-defendant, who disputed the plaint averments. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed three issues. 6. On behalf of plaintiff, she herself was examined and on behalf of defendant, he himself was examined. Thereafter the arguments were heard by the trial court and on coming to the conclusion that the plaint was not signed by the counsel, the affidavit filed along with the plaint was not notarized and the duplicate copy of the plaint was not signed by the counsel, the plaint was ordered to be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 (e) CPC. 7. 7. The relevant portion of the impugned judgment reads as under:- " 5- lquk rFkk i=koyh dk HkyhHkkaWfr voyksdu fd;k ftlls fofnr gS fd oknuh }kjk okni= ds vfHkopuksa dks O;ogkj izfdz;k lafgrk ds izko/kkuksa ds vuq:i vf/koDrk ls vuqizekf.kr ugha djk;k gS vkSj okni= ds leFkZu esa O;ogkj izfdz;k lfgrk ds vkns'k 5 fnukad 15 ( 4 ) ds ifjisz{; esa vfHkopuksa ds iqf"V esa 'kiFki= Hkh izLrqr ugha fd;k gS rFkk oknuh }kjk okni= ds leFkZu esa izLrqr 'kiFki= ds voyksdu ls gh ;g Li"V gS fd bldk lR;kiu l{ke lR;kiu l{ke 'kiFk vk;qDr@uksVjh }kjk ugha djk;k x;k gS vkSj okni= ds lR;kiu dks Hkh vf/koDrk }kjk izekf.kr o gLrk{kfjr ugha fd;k x;k gSA okni= ds lkFk izLrqr okn i= dh " f}rh; izfr " (Duplicate) dks Hkh fu;ekuqlkj vf/koDrk }kjk vuqizekf.kr ugha fd;k x;k gS rFkk blds lkFk oknuh dk 'kiFki= Hkh layxz ugha gS tks O;ogkj izfdz;k lafgrk ds vkns'k 6] fu;e 15(4) ds izfrdwy gksdj vkns'k 7] fu;e 11 ( bZ ) ds vuqlkj okni= dks [k.Muh; cukrk gSaA " 6- O;ogkj izfdz;k lafgrk vkns'k 6] fu;e 1 ds vuqlkj "Pleading" shall mean plaint or written statement.) vkSj O;ogkj izfdz;k lafgrk ds vkns'k 6] fu;e 14 esa of.kZr gS%& Every pleading shall be signed by the party and his pleader (if any): Provided that where a party, by reson of absence or for other good cause., unable to sign the pleading, it may be signed by any person duly authorised by him to sign the same or to sue or defend on his behalf. blh izdkj O;ogkj izfdz;k lafgrk ds vkns'k 6] fu;e 15@4 esa ;g fufnZ"V gS fd The person verifying the pleading shall also furnish an affidavit in support of his pleadings. blh izdkj O;ogkj izfdz;k lafgrk ds vkns'k 6] fu;e 15@4 esa ;g fufnZ"V gS fd The person verifying the pleading shall also furnish an affidavit in support of his pleadings. vkSj iwoZ foosfpr mYys[k ls ;g Li"V gS fd oknuh }kjk okni= dks O;ogkj izfdz;k lafgrk ds izkfo/kkuksa mlds gLrk{kj vatw ds foHksnh; uke ls Hkh djk;s x;s gSaA " 7- blh izdkj izfroknh }kjk izLrqr tokcnkos ds lR;kiu iz[k.M dks Hkh vf/koDrk ls vuqizekf.kr ugha djk;k x;k gS vkSj tokcnkos :ih vfHkopuksa ds leFkZu esa O;ogkj izfdz;k lafgrk ds vkns'k 6] fu;e 15 ( 4 ) ds vuqlj.k esa 'kiFki= Hkh izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gS rFkk uk gh bldh f}rh; izfr (Duplicate) gh izLrqr dh xbZ gSA foosfpr rF;ksa ds izdk'k esa] ;g U;k;ky; oknuh }kjk izLrqr okn dks O;ogkj izfdz;k lafgrk ds vkns'k 7] fu;e 11 bZ ds ifjizs{; esa iks"k.kh; uk ikrs gq, okni= Plant dks fujLr djuk fof/ktU; vuqHko djrk gSA 8. Heard the appellant and perused the record.9. It is submitted by the appellant that the observations made by the trial court are factually incorrect inasmuch as the plaint in fact has been signed by the counsel, the defect pertaining to affidavit was a formal defect and the fact that the duplicate copy of the plaint was not signed by the counsel is meaningless as the same was signed by the plaintiff herself. Further, the fact that the copy of the affidavit was not filed along with the duplicate copy cannot be said to be fatal and as such the judgment passed by the trial court deserves to be set aside.Provision of Order 7, Rule 11 (e) CPC reads as under:- "11 Rejection of plaint - The plaint shall be rejected in the flowing cases: (e) Where it is not filed in duplicate." 10. A bare look at the order passed by the trial court as quoted above, would reveal that the Court though has rejected the plaint under provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 (e) CPC, it has indicated the reasons in the judgment, which are apparently beyond the scope of the said provision.11. A bare look at the order passed by the trial court as quoted above, would reveal that the Court though has rejected the plaint under provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 (e) CPC, it has indicated the reasons in the judgment, which are apparently beyond the scope of the said provision.11. While provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 (e) CPC provides for rejection of plaint in a case, where duplicate copy of a plaint has not been filed, in the present case, a perusal of the record indicates that duplicate copy of the plaint, in fact, was filed, the fact that the said filing was not in accordance with the provisions of Order 6, Rule 15 (4) CPC is of absolutely no consequence.12. Besides the fact that the purpose and the requirement of filing the duplicate copy of the plaint had already been over as the defendant had already appeared; filed his written statement; issues were framed and evidence was led. Where after to invoke the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 (e) CPC appears to be an effort on part of the trial court to find a shortcut for disposal of the case instead of deciding the same on merits. The other defects pointed out by the trial court also cannot be said to be affecting the jurisdiction of the Court so as to result in rejection of the plaint.13. The most outstanding feature of the entire case is that no objection in this regard was ever raised by the defendant and it appears that the trial court after hearing the final arguments from the parties on perusal of the record on its own has rejected the plaint and that also on wholly non-existent grounds.14. The courts are essentially meant for dispensing justice and not to indulge in rejecting the plaints and/or dismiss the proceedings for apparently no reason and/or for reasons, which does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court. Therefore, the judgment passed by the trial court cannot be sustained on any of the grounds indicated in the judgment.15. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 10.01.2012 passed by the trial court is set aside. The suit is remanded back to the trial court with a direction to hear the arguments of the parties/counsel for the parties again and, thereafter decide the suit on merits.Record be sent back to the trial court immediately.Appeal Allowed. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 10.01.2012 passed by the trial court is set aside. The suit is remanded back to the trial court with a direction to hear the arguments of the parties/counsel for the parties again and, thereafter decide the suit on merits.Record be sent back to the trial court immediately.Appeal Allowed. *******