Since last few days entire media attention is focused on Gyanvapi case. Even the social media is full of comments on this matter. The immediate topic of hot discussion is the application filed by the defendants in the Gyanvapi case, which is pending before the District Judge, Varanasi, praying for the rejection of suit under Order-7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The application has been primarily filed under sub rule- (d) of the rule 11, on the ground that the suit is barred by THE PLACES OF WORSHIP (SPECIAL PROVISIONS) ACT, 1991
For an easy understanding of the matter, Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC reads as follows:
11. Rejection of plaint.— The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;
[(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;]
[(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9:]
[Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.]
The sub rule (d) lays down that the plaint shall be rejected when it appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. There are two parts of this clause:
i. Plaint should be barred by law; and
ii. It should appear so barred from the statement in the plaint
From a plain reading it is clear that the condition of “being barred by law” should appear from the statements contained in the plaint itself and not otherwise. It is only the statements made in the plaint which can be considered for deciding an application under Order-7, Rule-11(d) of the CPC and what has been stated by the Defendant in their Written Statement (Reply) is not at all relevant at this stage.
It is not sufficient that the plaint should be barred by law but it should so appear from the contents of the plaint. Unless and until both the conditions are satisfied, the plaint can not be rejected.
This issue has been dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme court in a large number of judgments, a few of which are quoted as below :
In Saleem Bhai & Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra, AIR 2003 SC 759, (2003) 1 SCC 557, it was held with reference to Order VII Rule 11 of the Code that the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application thereunder are the averments in the plaint. The trial Court can exercise the power at any stage of the suit – before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, the averments in the plaint are the germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage.
In Popat and Kotecha Property vs. State Bank of India Staff Association (2005) 7 SCC 510 it was held
“10. Clause (d) of Order 7 Rule 7 speaks of suit, as appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. Disputed questions cannot be decided at the time of considering an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 applies in those cases only where the statement made by the plaintiff in the plaint, without any doubt or dispute shows that the suit is barred by any law in force.”
In Kamala Vs. K.T.Eshwara , (2008) 12 SCC 661 , the hon’ble Supreme Court held that Order VII, Rule 11(d) of the Code has limited application. It must be shown that the suit is barred under any law. Such a conclusion must be drawn from the averments made in the plaint. Different clauses in Order VII, Rule 11, in our opinion, should not be mixed up. Whereas in a given case, an application for rejection of the plaint may be filed on more than one ground specified in various sub-clauses thereof, a clear finding to that effect must be arrived at. What would be relevant for invoking clause (d) of Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code is the averments made in the plaint. For that purpose, there cannot be any addition or subtraction.
In Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. v. Central bank of India, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 482. it was held as under:
“18. It is clear that in order to consider Order VII Rule 11, the court has to look into the averments in the plaint and the same can be exercised by the trial court at any stage of the suit. It is also clear that the averments in written statement are immaterial and it is the duty of the Court to scrutinize the averments/pleas in the plaint. In other words, what needs to be looked into in deciding such an application are the averments in the plaint. At that stage, the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement are wholly irrelevant and the matter is to be decided only on the plaint averment. These principles have been reiterated in Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. v. Ganesh Property, (1998) 7 SCC 184 and Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. v. Vessel M.V. Fortune Express, (2006) 3 SCC 100.”
In the latest decision in case of Srihari Hanumandas Totala Vs. Hemant Vithal Kamat , (2021) 9 SCC 99, also it has been categorically stated that whether the suit is barred by any law or not must be determined from the statements made in the plaint and it is not open to decide the issue on the basis of any other material including the written statement filed in the case.
The contention of the Defendants that the plaint is barred by THE PLACES OF WORSHIP (SPECIAL PROVISIONS) ACT, 1991 can be decided by the court only after both the parties lead their respective evidences on the status of the disputed temple on the prescribed cut off date, but certainly this legal bar (if at all) will not be apparent on reading of the contents of the plaint, due to which the provisions of Order-7, Rule-11 of CPC will not apply and the suit can not be rejected at this stage.