Plaint Can’t be rejected in Part by a Civil Court
In Satya Pal Gupta Vs. Sudhir Kumar Gupta , the Delhi High Court, in RFA (OS) 76/2013, C.M. APPL.10644/2013 , on 29 Apr 2016 ,reiterated the settled law that
Under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,a plaint cannot be rejected in part by a civil court, whilst exercising its powers under Order VII, Rule 11.
It held the following :
25.It is well established that a plaint cannot be rejected in part by a civil court, whilst exercising its powers under Order VII, Rule 11. The rule was enunciated in Roop Lal Sathi v. Nachhattar Singh Gill, 1982 (3) SCC 487, where it was held that only a part of the plaint cannot be rejected and if no cause of action is disclosed, the plaint as a whole must be rejected. Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. v. Ganesh Property, 1998 (7) SCC 184, stated as follows:
“18. There cannot be any compartmentalization, dissection, segregation and inversions of the language of various paragraphs in the plaint. If such a course is adopted it would run counter to the cardinal canon of interpretation according to which a pleading has to be read as a whole to ascertain its true import. It is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage and to read it out of the context in isolation. Although it is the substance and not merely the form that has to be looked into, the pleading has to be construed as it stands without addition or subtraction of words or change of its apparent grammatical sense. The intention of the party concerned is to be gathered primarily from the tenor and terms of his pleadings taken as a whole. At the same time it should be borne in mind that no pedantic approach should be adopted to defeat justice on hair- splitting technicalities.
Keeping in view the aforesaid principles the reliefs sought for in the suit as quoted supra have to be considered. The real object of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code is to keep out of Courts irresponsible law suits. Therefore, the Order 7 of the Code is a tool in the hands of the Courts by resorting to which and by searching examination of the party in case the Court is prima facie of the view that the suit is an abuse of the process of the Court in the sense that it is a bogus and irresponsible litigation, the jurisdiction under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code can be exercised.”