SAYYED AYAZ ALI versus PRAKASH G GOYAL & ORS.

SAYYED AYAZ ALI versus PRAKASH G GOYAL & ORS.

An order of rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) is deemed to be a decree within the meaning of Section 2(2) CPC and is therefore subject to a first appeal under Section 96 CPC; the proviso to Order 7 Rule 11 relates to correction of valuation or supplying stamp-paper (clauses (b) and (c)) and does not apply to rejections under clause (d), hence the Trial Judge was not justified in granting time to amend after rejecting the plaint under clause (d); the High Court was correct to allow the revision and dismiss the writ as inadmissible in view of the alternative remedy of appeal.

Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Sayyed Ayaz Ali; Defendants/respondents: Prakash G Goyal & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
20 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order of the High Court (revision and Writ Proceedings)
Outcome
Appeals disposed of; judgment of Single Judge of High Court affirmed
Legal Topics
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, Section 96 CPC (first Appeal), Section 2(2) CPC (decree Includes Rejection of Plaint), Section 34 Specific Relief Act 1963, Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 227
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Property Law Order 7 Rule 11 CPC Section 96 CPC (first Appeal) Section 2(2) CPC (decree Includes Rejection of Plaint) Section 34 Specific Relief Act 1963 Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 227

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sayyed Ayaz Ali

Plaintiff/appellant

Prakash G Goyal & Ors.

Defendants/respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order of the High Court (revision and Writ Proceedings)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an order rejecting a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) is a decree within meaning of Section 2(2) CPC and therefore subject to first appeal under Section 96 CPC
  2. 2 Whether the proviso to Order 7 Rule 11 (relating to extension of time for correcting valuation or supplying stamp paper) applies to a rejection under clause (d)
  3. 3 Whether the Trial Judge was justified in permitting amendment after rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d)

Ratio Decidendi

An order of rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) is deemed to be a decree within the meaning of Section 2(2) CPC and is therefore subject to a first appeal under Section 96 CPC; the proviso to Order 7 Rule 11 relates to correction of valuation or supplying stamp-paper (clauses (b) and (c)) and does not apply to rejections under clause (d), hence the Trial Judge was not justified in granting time to amend after rejecting the plaint under clause (d); the High Court was correct to allow the revision and dismiss the writ as inadmissible in view of the alternative remedy of appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeals disposed of; judgment of Single Judge of High Court affirmed

Orders

  • Affirmed the High Court judgment allowing the revision petition filed by the first and second defendants
  • Affirmed the High Court judgment dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant-plaintiff