SATYA RAM BARUAH Vs. PRANJAL BARUAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is taken up for disposal at the admission stage taking into account that the plaint of the suit was rejected. No doubt, there are various parties in the instant appeal, but as the plaint was rejected at the behest of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 who are the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein and the said respondent Nos.1 and 2 are duly represented by the learned senior counsel Mr. S Sarma, this Court have taken up the instant appeal for disposal at this stage.

(2.) This appeal has been filed against the order dt. 20/11/2023 passed in Misc.(J).Case No.536/2023 in Title Suit No.211/2023, whereby the plaint in the said suit was rejected. Taking into account that rejection of the plaint amounts to a decree, the present regular first appeal has been preferred.

(3.) It is a trite principle of law that while adjudicating an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the Code), the Court is only required to look into the averments of the plaint and the documents relied thereupon. Order VII Rule II stipulates six conditions when a plaint can be rejected: (1) where the plaint does not disclose a cause of action; or (2) where the reliefs claimed are undervalued and the plaintiffs, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so; or (3) where the reliefs claimed are properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped and the plaintiffs, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time fixed by the Court, fails to do so; or (4) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; or (5) where the plaint is not filed in duplicate; or (6) where the plaint fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9 of Order VII.