ARUNESH PUNETHA Vs. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present case, simple but questions of some importance arise for consideration. They are:-

(2.) It is an undisputed canon of codified civil jurisprudence that the legislative intent behind the provisions of Order VII Rule 11, is to bring the finality to a civil lis before the court at the very threshold, provided, the grounds stated therein for rejection of a plaint are satisfied. Rejection of plaint in contra-distinction to return of a plaint practically terminates the proceedings before the court of a competent jurisdiction. The orders of the court passed under these provisions have serious repercussions on the rights of the parties and as such they need to be construed strictly and would not normally admit a liberal or an enlarge construction which would bring within its ambit and scope of the provisions what is not specifically provided. Proviso to Rule 11 introduced by amending Act 104 of 1976 effective from 1st February, 1977 is suggestive of the fact that enforcement of the rigour of these provisions to a limited extent as indicated in the proviso, leaves it as a discretion of the court despite the fact that the plaintiff might not have undervalued the suit and fails to pay the requisite court fee within the time allowed by the court, still the court would allow extension of time, provided, it is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature and if time was not extended, it would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff. While in relation to sub-clause (a) and A(c) to (f), the law has not vested any discretion as is indicated in the proviso which relates to sub-clause (b) of Rule 11 of Order VII of the Code. The ambit and scope of Order VII Rule 11 has always been a subject of detailed discussion by the courts. Before the facts of the present case are stated, reference to the general principles of these provisions could usefully be referred. These principles were discussed in some elaboration by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of ABN-AMRO Bank v. the Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority 1999(3) PLR 479 , where the court held as under:-

(3.) The Supreme Court in a very recent judgment titled as Liverpool & London S.P. & I. Association Ltd. v. M.V.Sea Success I and another (2004) 9 SCC 512, discussed at great length not only the ambit and scope of these provisions but also commented upon certain vital issues in relation to maintainability and adjudication of an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. This judgment in fact has been heavily relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant/plaintiff in support of his submissions. While describing the meaning of cause of action, the court held as under:-