Court Cannot Grant Liberty To Amend Plaint While Rejecting It Under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC: Supreme Court

Published by Admin on

Case: Sayyed Ayaz Ali vs. Prakash G Goyal

Coram: Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah

Case No: [CA 2401-2402 of 2021]

Court Observation: 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.

“The definition of “decree” in Section 2(2) “shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint”. Hence, the order of the Trial Court rejecting the plaint is subject to a first appeal under Section 96 of the CPC. The writ petition filed by the appellant was liable to be rejected on that ground.”


Leave a Reply

Hey, wait!

Don't forget to subscribe to our newsletter for weekly updates about our events, blogs and various opportunities.