The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that while rejecting a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of Code of Civil Procedure, the Court can’t grant liberty to the plaintiff to amend a plaint.
In the instant case, the Trial Court permitted the plaintiff to carry out an amendment for seeking appropriate reliefs. The appellant instituted a Writ Petition1 under Article 227 of the Constitution for challenging the order of the Trial Judge allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. The High Court decided both the civil revision application and the writ petition by a common judgment. The Single Judge held that since the plaint was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) there was no occasion to direct that an amendment be made to the plaint.
The Bench comprising of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice MR Shah observed that Under the proviso, the time so fixed shall not be extended unless the court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by a cause of an exceptional nature from complying within the time fixed by the court and that a refusal to extend time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff. The proviso evidently covers the cases falling within the ambit of clauses (b) and (c) and has no application to a rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d). In the circumstances, the High Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the further direction that was issued by the Trial Judge was not in consonance with law.
Since the dismissal of the writ petition has been upheld on the ground that the order rejecting the plaint operates as a decree within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the CPC, the appellant is at liberty to take recourse to the remedy against the rejection of the plaint as prescribed by the CPC.
The Supreme Court noted that the proviso in Order 7 Rule 11 and stated that it deals with a situation where the Court had fixed time for correction of valuation or supplying requisite stamp paper.