Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint With Multiple Reliefs Cannot Be Rejected Just Because Some Reliefs Are Barred : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that when a Plaint includes multiple reliefs, it cannot be rejected solely because one of the reliefs is barred by law, as long as the other reliefs remain valid. According to the Court, the plaint cannot be partially rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.“If the civil court is of the view that one relief (say relief A) is not barred by law but is of the view...
The Supreme Court observed that when a Plaint includes multiple reliefs, it cannot be rejected solely because one of the reliefs is barred by law, as long as the other reliefs remain valid.
According to the Court, the plaint cannot be partially rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.
“If the civil court is of the view that one relief (say relief A) is not barred by law but is of the view that Relief B is barred by law, the civil court must not make any observations to the effect that relief B is barred by law and must leave that issue undecided in an Order VII, Rule 11 application. This is because if the civil court cannot reject a plaint partially, then by the same logic, it ought not to make any adverse observations against relief B.”, the Court observed.
The bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan was hearing a case under the SARFAESI Act in which the plaintiff sought three reliefs in a suit filed before the Civil Court. Two of the reliefs, concerning ownership and title over the suit property used as collateral for a bank-sanctioned loan, were not barred by law, and the Civil Court had jurisdiction to decide on them. However, the third relief, which pertained to the restoration of possession under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, was barred by law, as such an application must be filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), not the Civil Court.
The Court stated that while the Civil Court's jurisdiction could not be invoked to grant the third relief, this would not prevent the Civil Court from addressing the first two reliefs. In other words, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC merely because the third relief is barred by law, as long as the other reliefs remain within the court's jurisdiction for adjudication.
“Hence, even if one relief survives, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC. In the case on hand, the first and second reliefs as prayed for are clearly not barred by Section 34 of the SARFAESI ACT and are within the civil court's jurisdiction. Hence, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.”, the court observed.
Also From Judgment: Banks Giving Loans Without Proper Title Search Reports : Supreme Court Flags Issue To RBI; Says Officials Who Approved Loan Be Made Liable
Case Title: CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ANR. VERSUS SMT. PRABHA JAIN & ORS.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 96