KANTHAMMA Vs. N ANANDA KUMAR REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether Order VII Rule 11 of CPC permits partial rejection of a plaint or a plaint as a whole alone can be rejected This is the question of law that requires determination in this appeal. The question is answered by holding that a plaint as a whole alone can be rejected and partial rejection of a plaint is not permissible in law.

(2.) By consent of learned Counsel on both sides, the appeal is heard on merits and is being disposed of by this judgment. This appeal is by the plaintiffs and is directed against the order dated 05.04.2016 passed by the trial Court allowing IA No.37 filed by respondent No.1 (defendant No.23) under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC by partly rejecting the plaint in the suit in OS No.8068/2011 in respect of suit schedule-H and J properties. Operative portion of the impugned order reads as follows:

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the order of the trial Court in partly rejecting the plaint is clearly contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sejal Glass Ltd. v. Navilan Merchants Pvt. Ltd, 2017 AIR(SC) 4477 and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.