“Strange Approach”: Apex Court Says While Quashing High Court’s Order Remanding Application For Rejection Of Plaint To Trial Court

Consequentially, a bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed, “The High Court ought to have decided the petition one way or the other. Without adverting to the merits, the High Court has recorded in the impugned order that the application for rejection of the plaint ought to have been allowed. There is no specific finding recorded by the High Court why the application should have been allowed. Thereafter, a strange approach is adopted by the High Court while passing the impugned order by remanding the application for rejection of the plaint to the Trial Court. It was the duty of the High Court to hear the petition on merits and decide whether the order of the Trial Court was legal or otherwise. The remand was wholly unwarranted”.

Senior Advocate V Chitambaresh appeared for the petitioner and AOR Renuka Sahu appeared for the respondent.

The bench further directed a copy of the order to be sent to the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court of Kerala to ensure that the restored petitions are placed before the roster Bench on February 26, 2024 for the purposes of fixing a date of hearing.

The Court also directed the appellant and the respondent to remain present before the roster Bench on the date.

The High Court in the impugned order had noted, “…the application submitted for rejection of the suit on the ground of limitation under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. ought to have been allowed by the trial court without going into an adventurous roving enquiry as to the question of limitation. The dismissal of the said application hence cannot be sustained. But for the purpose of addressing the issue afresh before the trial court, the impugned order will stand set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial court for fresh consideration”.

The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondent was the defendant. The respondent applied for rejection of the plaint by invoking Rule 11 of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. However, the Trial Court rejected the said application.

Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Trial Court, the respondent approached the High Court by filing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Thus the Supreme Court while partly allowing the appeal kept all contentions open to be decided by the High Court.

Appearance: For the Petitioner: Senior Advocate V Chitambaresh, and AOR Ramesh Babu M. R

For the Respondent: AOR Renuka Sahu, and Advocate Shubham Bhatia

Cause Title: M.P. Shyam v. Suja Thomas

Click here to read/download the Order