RAJENDRA BAJORIA & ORS V.

HEMANT KUMAR JALAN & ORS

2021 SCC ONLINE SC 764

6.1 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND LAW OF LIMITATION

(Project Final Draft)

Submitted by
AKANKSHA BOHRA
UID No.: UG19-08
BA.LL.B.(Hons.)
Year: III Semester: VI

Submitted to
Dr. Manoj Kumar Sharma
Associate Professor of Law

April 2022
MAHARASHTRA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, NAGPUR
 CONTENTS
Index of Authorities.................................................................................................................................3
Introduction..............................................................................................................................................4
Facts of the Case......................................................................................................................................4
Legal Provision Involved.........................................................................................................................5
Strength of the Bench (In the Supreme Court of India)...........................................................................5
Procedural History...................................................................................................................................5
Issue for consideration before the Supreme Court...................................................................................6
Gist of Arguments from both the sides....................................................................................................6
Judgment and Reasoning.........................................................................................................................7
Analysis and Conclusion.......................................................................................................................10
Bibliography..........................................................................................................................................12

2
 Index of Authorities
 Table of Cases

Rajendra Bajoria and Ors v. Hemant Kumar Jalan and Ors, 2021 SCC 4
Online SC 764
Hemant Kumar Jalan vs Rajendra Bajoria & Ors, 2019 AIR CC 430 5

Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead Through 6

Legal Representative, (2020) 7 SCC 366.
T. Arivandandam v T.V. Satyapal and Another, (1977) 4 SCC 467. 7

Pearlite Liners (P) Ltd. v. Manorama Sirsi, (2004) 3 SCC 172. 7

Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, 1986 Supp SCC 315. 7

Manvendrasinhji Ranjitsinhji Jadeja v. Vijaykunverba, 1998 SCC 8

OnLine Guj 281
Liverpool and London S.P. and I Association Ltd. v. M.V. Sea 10
Success, (2004) 9 SCC 512.

M/S Frost International Limited v. M/S Milan Developers And 11

Builders (P) Limited & Anr, Civil Appeal no. 1689 of 2022

 List of Statutes
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Indian Partnership Act, 1932.

Introduction
Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with plaint. Rules 1 to 8 of Order VII
provides for the particulars in a plaint. Rule 9 states the procedure for admitting a plaint. The

3
provision for return of plaint and appearance of parties is stated under Rules 10 to 10B. Rules
11 to 13 discusses the rejection of plaint. Lastly Rules 14 to 17 lays down the provision
regarding the production of documents. Order VII Rule 11 deals with the rejection of plaints
on certain grounds specified in clauses (a) to (e). One such ground for rejection of plaint is
that where there is non-disclosure of cause of action in the plaint submitted. In the case of
Rajendra Bajoria and Ors v. Hemant Kumar Jalan and Ors1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
discussed the scope of rejection of plaint where the plaint does not disclose the cause of
action as provided under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
In furtherance to this discussion, the second chapter covers the Facts of the case, Procedural
History and gist of Arguements Advanced by the parties. The second section consists of the
Judgement delivered by the Court and the last section deals with the analysis of the case and
the relevance of the case in understanding the concept.

Facts of the Case

A partnership firm named “Soorajmull Nagarmull” was formed by the way of Partnership
Deed on 6th December 1943. The firm had 9 partners namely Baijnath Jalan, Mohanlal Jalan,
Babulal Jalan,Sewbhagwan Jalan, Keshabdeo Jalan, Nandkishore Jalan, Deokinandan Jalan,
Chiranjilal Bajoria and Kishorilal Jalan. On death of all the partners of the firm, the legal
heirs of three partners(Plaintiff/Appellant) filed a civil suit against the legal heirs of the other
original partners in the firm (Defendants/Respondent) before the Calcutta High Court (Single
Judge). In the civil suit instituted, the plaintiff claimed certain reliefs i.e
a) “A declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to have a share in the firm assets and
properties along with the defendants as the legal heirs of the original partners of the
reconstituted firm.
b) A declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to represent the partnership firm in all
legal proceedings related to the Bhagalpur land acquisition.
c) A decree to be passed for perpetual injunction on the defendants from presenting them
as the authorised representative of the firm.
d) A decree for mandatory injuction seeking a full disclosure of full details of assets and
properties of the firm and complete accounts of the firm for the dissolution of the
firm.
e) A decree for dissolution of the firm and winding up the firm after the realisation of the
assets and properties of the firm.”
1
Rajendra Bajoria and Ors v. Hemant Kumar Jalan and Ors, 2021 SCC Online SC 764.

4
Thereafter, an application was filed by the defendant for rejection of the plaint on the ground
that there was no disclosure of cause of action. The application was dismissed by the Single
Judge on 22nd September 2017. The defendants brought an appeal before the Calcutta High
Court (Division Bench). On 14th September 2018, the DB allowed the appeal and passed a
decision rejecting the plaint. Later the defendants (Plaintiff) filed a suit before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court aggrieved by the order of the division bench.2

Legal Provision Involved

Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Under Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure the rejection of the plaint is provided by the
court. Order VII Rule 11 of the code states the grounds for rejection of plaints in certain
circumstances, one among which is non-disclosure of explanation for action. Explanation for
Action is defined as the set of allegations or facts which form the bottom for filing of a
lawsuit within the court. It is required that the explanation for action should be clearly
mentioned within the plaint. If the plaint doesn’t explicitly mention the explanation for action
then the plaint shall be rejected by the court. The explanation for action is important because
it refers to the disclosure of the facts that made the plaintiff file such action. 3
If the cause of action is not mentioned, it shall be perceived as an abuse of the process of the
court. Under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, it is necessary to show a clear case of absence of cause
of action on the face of the plaint. The court has to thus carry forward the proceedings only
when it can clearly differentiate that the statements made in the plaint are true and correct.
The plaint should be read as a “whole and meaningful”. The court should be vigilant enough
to not be beguiled by pseudo vision created by clever drafting by the way of illusion of cause
of action.4
Thus when the Court is engaged in rejection of a plaint, it must ascertain that the plaint has a
clear disclosure of cause of action by reading the pleadings along with the relevant provisions
of law. The Court must be restricted to the application of judicial mind to the plaint and must
not deal with other document filed under Order VII Rule 11. This position was reaffirmed in
the case of Liverpool and London S.P. and I Association Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success 5, where in

2
Ibid, ¶3,4,5.
3
Ankoosh Mehta, Siddharth Ratho & Maitrayi Jain, SUPREME COURT SETS OUT OBJECT AND
PURPOSE OF ORDER VII RULE 11 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908,
https://corporate.cyrilamarchandblogs.com/2020/08/supreme-court-sets-out-object-and-purpose-of-order-vii-
rule-11-of-the-code-of-civil-procedure-1908/
4
C.K. Takwani’s, CIVIL PROCEDURE WITH LIMITATION ACT, 9th Ed, 2021, Eastern Book Company.
5
Liverpool and London S.P. and I Association Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success, (2004) 9 SCC 512.

5
 it was provided that the plaint must be read in entirety and the cause of action should be
disclosed from a bare reading of the plaint. It is thus important to understand that through
these case laws, the courts have realised that the time of courts is precious and that litigation
which are vexatious must be avoided in order to save the time and efforts of the court.

Strength of the Bench (In the Supreme Court of India)

Before Justice L.Nageswara Rao and Justice B.R. Gavai

Procedural History
 In 2017, the plaintiff i.e the legal heirs of the three partners filed a civil suit before the Single
Judge, Calcutta High Court. In the suit filed by the plaintiff, they claimed for a declaration
that they should granted entitlement to the assets of the partnership firm in the capacity of
legal heirs of the original partners of the firm. There were other claims as well which are
stated above in the factual matrix.
 On 22nd September 2017, an order was passed by the Single Judge wherein the application
filed by the defendant was dismissed. The defendant filed two applications seeking the
rejection of the plaint on the ground that there was no disclosure of cause of action in the
plaint, the relief claimed cannot be granted.
 Aggrieved by this decision, the original defendant came before the High Court where in the
court held that the reliefs cannot be granted and there by allowed the appeal. Being aggrieved
by this, appeal was filed in Supreme Court.6

Issue for consideration before the Supreme Court

1. Whether the appellants be granted the relief claimed by the party in the plaint ?
2. Whether the court shall allow such a suit in which none of the relief in the plaint cannot be
granted to the plaintiff as per the law ?

Gist of Arguments from both the sides

For Appellant :
At the outset, it was argued by the appellant that the plaint has a disclosure of the cause of
action and thereby it cannot be rejected as per the provision of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC 7. It
was contended by the counsel that the Division Bench while delivering the judgment had
6
Hemant Kumar Jalan vs Rajendra Bajoria & Ors, 2019 AIR CC 430.
7
Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908.

6
conducted a “mini-trial” to ascertain whether the claim requested by the plaintiff be granted
or not. Such conduct is not allowed while reviewing an application is made under Order VII
Rule 11 of the CPC.
The appellant’s counsel placed reliance on Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali
(Gajra) Dead Through Legal Representative8, where in it was held that the power to
terminate a civil suit conferred on the court is an important one. Thus in order to ascertain
whether the cause of action exists or not, the court should read the averments made in the
plaint in their totality and not in pieces. Hence the argument of appellant was that the
judgement delivered by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court was non-maintainable and
should be set aside.
For Respondents :
The respondent contended that the relied claimed by the plaintiff in their plaint could not be
granted and thereby the civil suit should be rejected by the Court. It was contended by the
Respondent that if the arguments stated in the plaint were read in consonance with the Indian
Partnership Act, 1932 as well as the clauses of the Partnership Deed signed between the
partners dated 6th December 1943, it would be certain that the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff
could not be granted. It was contended that under Section 40 of the Partnership Act9, “a firm
can be dissolved only with the consent of all the partners or in accordance with the contract
between the partners.” As per Section 4210 of the said Act, “a firm could be dissolved on the
death of a partner, however, this is subjected to a contract between the partners.” It was
submitted that a reading of Clause 4 of the Partnership Deed clearly shows that, “Upon the
death of any partner, the partnership shall not be automatically dissolved”. Further as per
Section 4411 of the Act, “the dissolution of the firm could be maintained only if the same is at
the instance of the partners.” In the present case, the plaintiff were non-partners and thus the
suit was not tenable. Reliance was placed by the respondent on T. Arivandandam v. T.V.
Satyapal12 and Pearlite Liners (P) Ltd. v. Manorama Sirsi13, where in it was held by the court
that, “if the reliefs claimed in the plaint are such that cannot be granted, then the Court has
the power to reject the plaint.”

8
Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead Through Legal Representative, (2020) 7 SCC 366.
9
Section 40, Indian Partnership Act, 1932.
10
Section 42, Indian Partnership Act, 1932.
11
Section 44, Indian Partnership Act, 1932.
12
T. Arivandandam v T.V. Satyapal and Another, (1977) 4 SCC 467.
13
Pearlite Liners (P) Ltd. v. Manorama Sirsi, (2004) 3 SCC 172.

7
Judgment and Reasoning
The Court primarily perused the complete pleadings and the averments stated in the plaint to
determine that whether a cause of action is made or not. It was held that in order to ascertain
that there is a cause of action, the entire pleadings should be read at their face value. The
averments made in the plaint should have a clear meaning and the court should consider the
pleadings not in a formal manner just to disclose the cause of action.14 The case of T.
Arivandandam v T.V. Satyapal and Another15 was discussed by the Supreme Court, where in
it was held that, “If on a meaningful not formal reading of the plaint it is found to be
manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the
court should exercise its power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC taking care to see that the
ground mentioned therein is fulfilled.
If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, then the court should nip it in
the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10, CPC. Thus if
by reason of a brilliant drafting, a “pseudo-vision” of a cause of action is created and on a
complete and meaningful reading of the plaint it is ascertained that the pleadings do not
ascertain a clear right to sue on the face value, then the court is empowered to exercise the
power conferred under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC,1908 and such civil suit should be
aborted at the very first conduct of proceeding.
Further, the case of Pearlite Liners Pvt Ltd v Manorama Sirsi,16 a similar issue was there
before the court that whether as per the given facts stated, such reliefs as claimed should be
granted to the plaintiff or not. It was observed that no relief sought by the plaintiff in the suit
could be allowed. Thereby the issue arose that when none of the relief could be granted, then
whether in such situation shall such suit be sustainable and allowed to be proceeded for trial.
It was held that such a suit should be rejected at the outset.
It was observed by the Court that if it is ascertained that any of the claim sought by the
plaintiff in the plaint cannot be granted under the provisions, the question before the court is
that whether such a suit should be maintained and should be proceeded to go for trial
proceedings. The court in this case held that such a suit having none of reliefs claimed be
granted should be thrown out at the very outset. The court upheld the decision of the trial
court of rejecting the suit filed and set aside the decision passed by the High Court.

14
Supra Note 1, ¶ 15.
15
Supra Note 9.
16
Supra Note 10.

8
The Supreme Court discussed the point that if none of the relief claimed can be granted then
such a plaint should not be sent for trial. Such a practise will lead to an act in futility. It will
be a “waste of time, money and energy” for the parties to the suit as well as will be
burdensome and consume unnecessary time of the court. It was held that, “No purpose will
be served by allowing the suit to proceed to trial since the prayers as framed cannot be
allowed on the basis of the pleadings in the plaint.” 17
The Supreme Court discussed the decision of Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali
(Gajra) Dead Through Legal Representatives and Others18, a similar factual matrix was
before the court and as a matter of fact, it was highlighted by the court that, “ the power to
terminate a civil action is a drastic one” and thus the conditions provided under Order VII
Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure should be strictly followed. Paragraph 23 of the
judgement discusses the same i.e “23.3. The underlying object of Order 7 Rule 11(a) is that if
in a suit, no cause of action is disclosed, or the suit is barred by limitation under Rule 11(d),
the court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in the suit.
In such a case, it would be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation, so that further
judicial time is not wasted.” This was reaffirmed by the case of Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv
Gandhi19 and Manvendrasinhji Ranjitsinhji Jadeja v. Vijaykunverba 20, where it was held that
the, “the whole purpose of conferment of powers under this provision is to ensure that a
litigation which is meaningless, and bound to prove abortive, should not be permitted to
waste judicial time of the court.”
In addition to this, the Supreme Court did not itself examine the claims related to the
Partnership requested by the Plaintiff, and discussed the reasoning and jurisprudence
expressed by the High Court with respect to each claim made that is as following :
“Firstly declaration that Plaintiffs along with the Defendants are entitled to the Firm assets as
heirs of the original partners of Firm. The Division Bench of Calcutta High Court highlighted
the fact that as per the Partnership Deed of the Firm it was provided that only the partners of
a firm are entitled to the profits earned by the firm. On the account of dissolution of the firm,
the partners have the right to the surplus of the sale proceeds obtained from the sale of assets
and properties of the firm after settling the liabilities of the partnership firm. As a matter of
fact, if the firm is continuing its operation and the business is continued, then the partners of
the firms are not entitled to have the right, title or interest in the assets and properties of the
17
Supra Note 1, ¶ 14.
18
Supra Note 5.
19
Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, 1986 Supp SCC 315.
20
Manvendrasinhji Ranjitsinhji Jadeja v. Vijaykunverba, 1998 SCC OnLine Guj 281.

9
firm. Keeping in view this clause, it was ruled by the Division Bench that the Plaintiffs, being
the legal heir of the original partners, cannot exercise any claim to the Firm assets and
properties, and as a fact, the claim for such a relief was not legally maintainable.
Secondly declaration that Plaintiffs along with the Defendants are entitled to represent the
Firm in certain proceedings for acquisition of a land. It was held by the Division Bench that
the prayer no. (b) of the plaint was a consequential relief and could be granted only in the
case if the first prayer was maintained. As prayer (a) was not maintained and granted as per
the law, thereby prayer (b) was equally not allowed in law. Thirdly a decree for perpetual
injunction restraining Defendants from representing themselves to be the authorised
representative of the Firm. It was held that this claim was also a consequential relief to prayer
(a) and (b).
Fourthly Decree for mandatory injunction directing Defendant No.1 to disclose full accounts
and particulars of Firm’s assets, etc for the purpose of its dissolution and Decree for
dissolution of the Firm and for the winding up of its affairs. As per the clauses of the
Partnership Deed, it was stated that the dissolution of a firm can only happen on the request
of the partners of a firm. As the Plaintiffs, i.e the legal heirs of the partners, were not admitted
as the partners of the firm and therefore the dissolution of the firm cannot be ordered by the
court at the request of the plaintiffs who are non-partners. As a reason, the Plaintiffs were not
empowered to claim dissolution of the Firm or to plead for accounts for the purpose of
dissolution of the Firm. With the provided findings, it was concluded that directing the parties
to trial would be a pointless exercise involving both the parties and the money and time of the
court. As a result, the Division Bench dismissed the plaint due to lack of establishment a
cause of action.”21
It was concluded by the Supreme Court that they were in consonance with the Division
Bench, Calcutta High Court with regard to the non-maintainability of the suit. The appeals
were dismissed after extensive reading of the plaint, the reliefs claimed therein, the sections
of the said Partnership Act and the clauses of the Partnership Deed, and was concluded that
the reliefs as claimed in the plaint cannot be granted.22

21
Supra Note 1, ¶ 17, 18.
22
Prachi Bhardwaj, LAW ON REJECTION OF PLAINT UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 OF CPC AS
EXPLAINED BY THE SUPREME COURT, https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/09/24/law-on-
rejection-of-plaint-under-order-vii-rule-11-of-cpc-as-explained-by-the-supreme-court/ (Visited on March 28,
2022).

10
Analysis and Conclusion
It can also be analysed from the case that the parties while drafting their plaint emphasize on
the factual matrix and the cause of action, but pay less attention to prayers and
maintainability of reliefs which may lead to a jeopardised situation for the civil suit. In order
to protect the suit from getting rejection, it is essential to have a careful and thorough analysis
of the law applicable and the grant of relief. The CPC doesn’t provide for ground of rejection
based on “reliefs” under Order VII Rule 11. However, as reliefs are associated with the
explanation for action, they’re consumed within the bottom associated with the plaint’s
disclosure of explanation for action. In the recent judgement of M/s. Frost International
Limited v. M/s. Milan Developers And Builders (P) Limited And Anr 23,it was observed by
Justice B.V.Nagarathna that the plaint should be read as it stands without addition or deletion
of any words or sentence. The intent and purpose of Order VII Rule 11 should be considered
while rejecting.
Therefore careful drafting is a sign of prevention of rejection of plaint by the Court.
However, as the test for plaint rejection on the idea of reliefs requested relies only on the
legal norm of maintainability, it will withstand any workarounds employed to point out the
presence of an explanation for action within the plaint by cunning phrasing. Additionally, the
parties agree that the courts shouldn’t hold a mini-trial to judge the plaint rejection petitions.
Courts recognise that the facility to dismiss a legal action is vast and will be exercised with
discretion; they also recognise that frivolous litigation should be dismissed directly.
As a reason, the parties should remember that the courts may conduct an in-depth review of
the explanation for action, reliefs, and applicable law in the present case particularly if the
reliefs are deemed unmaintainable by the courts. As a consequence, listening to the law and
therefore the civil process from the start and throughout the first hearings will go an extended
way toward avoiding a plaint being dismissed and assuring the civil or commercial case’s
continuance.

23
M/S Frost International Limited v. M/S Milan Developers And Builders (P) Limited & Anr, Civil Appeal no.
1689 of 2022

11
 Bibliography
Books –
1. C.K. Takwani, CIVIL PROCEDURE WITH LIMITATION ACT, 9 th Ed, Eastern
Book Company, 2021.
2. M.P. Jain, THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 5th Ed, Lexis Nexis, 2019.

Website

1. Prachi Bhardwaj, LAW ON REJECTION OF PLAINT UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 OF

CPC AS EXPLAINED BY THE SUPREME COURT,
https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/09/24/law-on-rejection-of-plaint-under-order-vii-
rule-11-of-cpc-as-explained-by-the-supreme-court/ (Visited on March 28, 2022).
2. Ankoosh Mehta, Siddharth Ratho & Maitrayi Jain, SUPREME COURT SETS OUT OBJECT
AND PURPOSE OF ORDER VII RULE 11 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,
1908, https://corporate.cyrilamarchandblogs.com/2020/08/supreme-court-sets-out-object-and-
purpose-of-order-vii-rule-11-of-the-code-of-civil-procedure-1908/ (Visited on March 28,
2022).

1.1.

12