Application For Rejection Of Plaint Cannot Be Dismissed On The Ground That Written Statement Was Not Filed: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court set aside an order that rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for rejection of the plaint while observing that such an application cannot be dismissed on the ground that a Written Statement was not filed.
The Court said that clauses (b) and (c) of Order 7 Rule 11 do not make any reference to the Written Statement.
The Court was hearing a Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of CPC against the order that rejected the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for Rejection of Plaint.
The bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed, “There being a bar for the Court to look into the written statement while considering an application under Rule 11 of Order VII, it is not permissible for the Trial Court to dismiss the application on the ground that the written statement was not filed.”
Advocate Anandrama K. appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Rajashekar S. appeared for the Respondent.
The Petitioner had filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, to reject the plaint arguing it was improperly valued and lacked the correct Court fee. The application was rejected because the petitioner, as a defendant, had not filed a written statement raising the issue of the adequacy of the Court fee.
The Court said that the issue for consideration is whether it is necessary for a defendant to file a written statement to argue that the Court fee paid is insufficient and, consequently, the plaint should be rejected under Rule 11 of Order VII.
The Court observed, “a two stage approach required to be followed by the Court under clauses (b) and (c) of Rule 11 of Order VII. Firstly, the determination of the proper Court fee to be paid and to provide an opportunity to the plaintiff to make payment of the Court fee. Secondly, if the determined Court fee is not paid within the fixed time, then reject the plaint.”
The Court further said that it is trite law that for consideration of application filed under Rule 11 of Order VII, only the averments made in the plaint are required to be considered and not that in the written statement.
The Court said that insofar as filing an application under Rule 11 of Order VII is concerned, there is no requirement to file a Written Statement prior thereto.
However, the Court made it clear that irrespective of whether an application under Rule 11 of Order VII is considered or not, the time period fixed under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, as amended, for filing the written statement would continue to hold and the Written Statement would have to be filed within the time frame prescribed.
Accordingly, the Court said that the Trial Court’s conclusion that the application under Rule 11 of Order VII could not be considered without a Written Statement being filed by referring to sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1958, is ex-facie erroneous.
Finally, the Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the Writ Petition.
Cause Title: Admar Mutt Kaliya v. Vishalakshi (Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC:23096)
