Raja HAROONRASHID vs M/s. UTILITY STORES COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY
The petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement regarding the sale of land, recovery of the balance sale price, and permanent injunction against the respondent society. The respondent filed an application for the rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, citing insufficient court-fee, time-bar, and violation of agreement terms. The trial court rejected this application, ruling that the court-fee was sufficient and that other objections required evidence. The High Court, however, allowed the respondent's revision petition, holding that the plaint failed to disclose a cause of action and was bad for multifariousness. Upon appeal, the petitioner contended that the suit did not suffer from multifariousness and that the trial court's initial decision was legally sound and not subject to interference in revisional proceedings. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the plaint was correctly rejected for multifariousness and whether the High Court's intervention in the trial court's order was justified under the circumstances.
- Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the grounds of multifariousness?
- Is a trial court's refusal to reject a plaint based on factual disputes subject to interference in revisional proceedings?
- Does a suit seeking specific performance, recovery of price, and permanent injunction necessarily suffer from multifariousness of causes of action?
- Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
' IRSHAD HASAN KHAN: J.---The petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 25-3-1991 in respect of sale of land measuring 383 Canals, 15 Marla's, recovery of the balance sale price/damages and permanent injunction against the respondent/defendants before the learned Civil Judge, Murree. An application was made on behalf of respondent No,1 (defendant society) for rejection of the plaint under-Order VII, rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, inter alia on the grounds that requisite court-fee was not paid, the suit was barred by time and that the petitioner/plaintiff himself violated the terms and conditions of the agreement. The learned trial Court rejected the application vide order dated 1-12-1993 holding that the plaintiff did affix the requisite court-fee valuing Rs,15,000. As to the other objections, it was held that the same could not be considered without recording evidence. Being aggrieved with this order, the respondent society filed revision petition before the High Court, which was allowed vide impugned judgment with the observation that the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C., as it did not disclose any cause of action against the respondent society and also for the reason that it was bad for multifariousness.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner's suit did not suffer from multifariousness of causes of action, in that, the respondent society could have been sued for specific performance, recovery of the balance sale price and permanent injunction in the peculiar facts and circumstances 'of the present case. It was further argued that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the view taken by the learned trial Court rejecting the application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C., was based on cogent reasons and suffered from no illegality, therefore, not open to challenge in provisional proceedings before the High Court.
3. Leave is granted to consider the above questions. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is ordered that the nature of the suit land shall not be altered during the pendency of the appeal.
Cited by 1 case
- Headmaster GHS Reshun vs Akbaruddin 2017 PHC 956