(2018)2 SCeJ 1240

SUPREME COURT e-journal

Civil Procedure Code, 1908,  Order VII Rule 11 – Application claiming rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit filed by respondent No.1 was barred by res judicata - Plaint in question did not disclose any cause of action  - At this stage, the defense in the written statement cannot be gone into - One has to only look into the plaint for the purpose of deciding application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC - It is possible that in a cleverly drafted plaint, the plaintiff has not given the details about the first Suit which has been decided against him - He has totally omitted to mention about the second Suit, the judgment wherein has attained finality – Plaintiff may be guilty of suppression and concealment, if the averments made by the appellant are ultimately found to be correct - However, as per the established principles of law, such a defense projected in the written statement cannot be looked into while deciding application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC. 

  1. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  7, Rule  1 - Rejection of plaint - Plea of the defendant regarding unregistered partnership firm etc. cannot be seen at this stage - Otherwise also, this case was fixed for final arguments and both the parties have already concluded their evidence - An application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. can be filed at any stage, but at the same time, the defendant by filing application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. cannot take his legal objections, which are in the written statement nor he can rely upon his documents - Otherwise also, prima facie there is nothing to show that the plaintiffs have constituted an unregistered firm. (177) P.L.R.
  2. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  7, Rule  1 - Rejection of plaint - Plea of the defendant regarding unregistered partnership firm etc. cannot be seen at this stage - Otherwise also, this case was fixed for final arguments and both the parties have already concluded their evidence - An application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. can be filed at any stage, but at the same time, the defendant by filing application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. cannot take his legal objections, which are in the written statement nor he can rely upon his documents - Otherwise also, prima facie there is nothing to show that the plaintiffs have constituted an unregistered firm. Raminder Kaur v. Rajinder Kumar Pahwa . (177) P.L.R. 11
  3. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  7, Rule  3 - Only object of Order 7 Rule 3 CPC is to identify the property for seeking its possession, but this provision will not apply where the issue is of location of the property - The appellants failed in discharging their onus as in the suit no demarcation was got done from the revenue authorities with respect to location of the suit property - Courts below have rightly held that appellants have failed to prove that the property of which possession is claimed from the respondents/defendants. (174) P.L.R. (Del.)
  4. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  7, Rule  3 - Only object of Order 7 Rule 3 CPC is to identify the property for seeking its possession, but this provision will not apply where the issue is of location of the property - The appellants failed in discharging their onus as in the suit no demarcation was got done from the revenue authorities with respect to location of the suit property. (173) P.L.R. (Del.)
  5. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  7, Rule  6 - Suit instituted after the expiry of limitation - Disability to sue by reason of delay as are available, say, where a remedy is pursued in the wrong forum and in the meantime limitation prescribed expires then exemption would follow to relax the period misspent in litigation provided departure was bona fide and not for collateral purpose or oblique motive - Nor is there an acknowledgement in writing by defendant of plaintiff's continuing right to sue say by extending the cause of action by a written acknowledgment of debt though the original cause of action became time barred against which the suit may not lie for want of limitation - Suit dismissed as time barred - Order upheld - As a matter of fact, the suit should never have been entertained and put to trial at all when the cause of action was time-barred as explicit on the face of the plaint itself.  (179) P.L.R.
  6. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  7, Rule  6A   - Counter-claim filed almost two and a half years after the framing of the issues - Sub-clause (1) of Section 6A of Order VIII, provides that the cause of action in respect of which a counter claim can be filed, should accrue before the defendant has delivered his defence, namely, before the defendant has filed a written statement  Plaintiff's evidence was still being recorded by the trial court, when the counter-claim was filed - It has also not been shown, that any prejudice would be caused to the respondent-plaintiff before the trial court, if the counter-claim was to be adjudicated upon, along with the main suit -  No serious injustice or irreparable loss, would be suffered by the plaintiff. (2016)3 P.L.R.SC 527
  7. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  7, Rule 10, 11 - It is is no longer res integra that it is only the averments in the plaint and the supporting documents filed by the Plaintiff that have to be examined for deciding an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC and Order VII Rule 11 CPC - The defence raised by the defendants is not to be considered at this stage.  (178) P.L.R. (Del.)
  8. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  7, Rule 10, Order 7, Rule 11 - Principles for rejecting a plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 or returning a plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC are more or less similar. (175) P.L.R. (Del.)
  9. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  7, Rule 10 - Well settled that in examining the case from the stand point of Order 7 Rule 10 CPC the plaint must be taken as it is and the averments made therein must be accepted as true - Only if, on assuming the averments made in the plaint to be true and correct, the Court comes to the conclusion that it would not have territorial jurisdiction, could the plaint be returned for filing the same in a Court having jurisdiction - The Court while examining this aspect of the matter cannot go beyond the facts stated in the plaint. (175) P.L.R. (Del.)
  10. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  7, Rule 11, clause (b) - Rejection of plaint - Allowed - Court is required to give time to the plaintiff to correct the Valuation - Court while disposing of the application of the respondents holding that the petitioner is liable to pay ad valorem  court fee did not provide an opportunity to the petitioner to correct the Valuation - Order set aside.   (182) P.L.R.
  11. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  7, Rule 11, Order 1, Rule 10 - It is well settled that while deciding the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC - The principles under Order VII Rule 11 CPC can only be used i.e. the documents and plaint filed can only be looked into and not the documents filed by the defendants.   D(182) P.L.R.
  12. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  7, Rule 11, Order 2, Rule 2 - Plaintiff were under bonafide  impression that filing of suit for specific performance on 21.12.2005 may not be dismissed being premature - The Court below had rightly taken the view that cause of action is a bundle of facts and the said action cannot be taken on the single line - For that purpose, entire facts have to be taken into consideration - A plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC if it is hit by the principle of Order 2, Rule 2 CPC.   (182) P.L.R.
  13. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  7, Rule 11, Order 2, Rule 2 - Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC results in drawing of a decree in terms of provision of sub-section 2 of Section 2 CPC - Once rejection of plaint is taken to be a decree in terms of sub-section 2 of Section 2 CPC, order of the civil court was rightly taken to be appealable - Domain sweep and impact of sub-section 2 of Section 2 of CPC was not studied in the interface of the facts and circumstances of the case - Similarly, provision of Order VII Rule 11 CPC whereby averments in the plaint were to be examined without looking at the averments in the written statement was also overlooked - Thus, the first Appellate Court while deciding the appeal missed important aspects - Order set aside. (179) P.L.R.
  14. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  7, Rule 11, Order 23 Rule 1(4) - Earlier suit was dismissed as withdrawn - In the instant plaint the plaintiff has again challenged the same consent judgment and decree and has sought consequential relief - Consequently, the instant second suit is clearly barred by law i.e. Order 23 Rule 1(4) CPC - Is liable to rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. (173) P.L.R.
  15. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  7, Rule 11, Section 9 - Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925) - Will - When a court can continue with the probate proceedings, then there is no question of rejecting the probate petition on the ground that civil suit is pending in the Civil Court. (174) P.L.R.
  16. Civil Procedure Code, 1908,  Order VII Rule 11 – Application claiming rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit filed by respondent No.1 was barred by res judicata - Plaint in question did not disclose any cause of action  - At this stage, the defense in the written statement cannot be gone into - One has to only look into the plaint for the purpose of deciding application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC - It is possible that in a cleverly drafted plaint, the plaintiff has not given the details about the first Suit which has been decided against him - He has totally omitted to mention about the second Suit, the judgment wherein has attained finality – Plaintiff may be guilty of suppression and concealment, if the averments made by the appellant are ultimately found to be correct - However, as per the established principles of law, such a defense projected in the written statement cannot be looked into while deciding application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC. (2018)2 SCeJ 1240

  17. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  7, Rule 11 -  Limitation - Issue be invoked either to reject a plaint in full or should allow the case to be proceeded and the court will have power to only reject such claim which were barred by limitation at the time of a full-fledged trial - Suit claim cannot be partially excised by invoking the powers under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.     (180) P.L.R.
  18. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  7, Rule 11 - An application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC can be allowed only if all the allegations in the plaint taken in their entirety at their face value to be correct, appeared to be barred by any law.  (179) P.L.R. (Del.)
  19. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  7, Rule 11 - Application for - Rejection of plaint - Dismissed - Agreements to sell - An agreement of sale does not create any transfer of interest in the property or title to the same, except that it provides for an equitable relief of enforcement through specific performance - Subsequent purchaser - Suit on the other hand is designed only to interdict the sale made such a prayer is incompetent and barred by law as not merely a issue that is barred by limitation, but, that it cannot be granted for a person who holds merely an agreement of sale - There is no way that an agreement holder can escape the consequences of the sale by his vendor through a registered document except when his own right could be enforced by means of specific performance - If the plaintiff chooses not to ask for such a relief, a prayer for a sale deed to be declared as null and void does not arise - Petition allowed - Plaint ordered to be rejected.  (180) P.L.R.
  20. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  7, Rule 11 - Application for rejection of plaint - For deciding this question, only the averments made in the plaint are relevant - Since the question of jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain and try the civil suit goes to the very root of the case and hence it can be raised at any time by the defendant by taking recourse to the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code. (S.C.)(182) P.L.R.
  21. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  7, Rule 11 - Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870) S. 7(iv)(c) -Prima facieshown that the sale deeds are subsequent to cancellation of general power of attorney, then it isprima faciedeemed that respondent No.1-plaintiff was not a party to those sale deeds - It is settled principle of law that once a registered document is cancelled by registered cancellation deed, then cancellation operates as constructive public notice. (173) P.L.R.
  22. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  7, Rule 11 - Court Fees Act, 1870 (VII of 1870) - Suit was filed for unliquidated damages and compensation to the extent of damages on account of causing grevious injury to the plaintiff by the petitioner-defendant on account of a gun shot injury which led to the amputation of the left hand - Suit for unliquidated damages and the amount of Court fees can always be fixed once the Court quantifies the damages and the plaintiff can be asked to pay the same - Application rejected - Order upheld. (179) P.L.R.
  23. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  7, Rule 11 - Courts below have erred in giving directions, while disposing of the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - The said directions are beyond the scope of provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - If the plaintiffs/respondents had filed some suit and seek some interim relief, it is always open to the lower Court to pass temporary mandatory injunction as it deems fit - But, this could not be done in an application filed under Order 7 Rule Rule 11 C.P.C.  (180) P.L.R.
  24. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  7, Rule 11 - Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (VIII of 1954) S. 33(1)(2) - Sub-section (2) of Section 33 stipulates that nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall preclude the transfer of land by a Bhumidar, who holds less than 8 standard acres of land, if such transfer is of the entire land held by him - Going by the plaint and the documents filed alongwith the plaint it cannot be concluded that the appellants/defendants hold less than 8 standard acres of land in the Union Territory of Delhi - It can also not be concluded that after the sale of 4 Bighas 10 Biswas of land, as contemplated under the Agreement to Sell in question, the appellants/defendants would be left with less than 8 standard acres of land in the Union Territory of  Delhi - It cannot be concluded that the relief sought by the respondent/plaintiffs is barred under Section 33 of the said Act.  (178) P.L.R. (Del.)
  25. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  7, Rule 11 - However we refrain from examining the same because in an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, all that has to be seen is the plaint and the accompanying documents - The written statement or the defences of the defendants are not to be examined at all - That would be a subject matter of trial - The law is well settled that while examining an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only the plaint and the accompanying documents are to be looked at.  (178) P.L.R. (Del.)
  26. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  7, Rule 11 - Ideally petitions under Order 7 Rule 11 have to be taken and disposed of at the earliest so that if the case did not deserve a full-fledged trial, it need not be detained as one more case in the Court records. (173) P.L.R.
  27. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  7, Rule 11 - Issue of court fee payable on a plaint is certainly to be decided on the basis of averments and prayer made in the plaint - Whether the suit of the plaintiff is likely to fail for failure to ask for consequential relief of possession is not the concern of the Court while deciding application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - The Court will only look into the contents of the plaint to see what is the relief asked for - Mere astuteness in drafting the plaint will not be allowed to stand in the way of the court looking at the substance of the relief asked for - In the present case, the petitioner has asked for. (173) P.L.R.
  28. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  7, Rule 11 - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Workmen can elect remedy either under the Industrial Disputes Act or before the civil court against an order passed adverse to his interest - If the remedy is elected before the labour court or industrial tribunal, and industrial rights alone are pressed in aid, viz non-compliance of Section 25 F, protections afforded by Section 25 G and 25 H etc. then the labour court would have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the dispute and the civil court would not have jurisidction  - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (XIV of 1947). (175) P.L.R.
  29. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  7, Rule 11 - objection is raised to the effect that the plaintiffs have joined two distinct cause of actions in the same suit, just to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court - No infirmity or perversity in the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. (176) P.L.R. (Del.)
  30. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  7, Rule 11 - Once the trial Court has come to the conclusion that civil court has no jurisdiction, asking it to record findings on all other issues would be totally unwarranted and wastage of precious time of the Court - Accordingly, the instant revision is allowed - Case is remanded to learned Appellate Court with a direction to record finding on issue No.2 treating it as preliminary issue and pass appropriate order. (173) P.L.R.
  31. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  7, Rule 11 - Only relief sought in the suit is for declaration that the sale deed is illegal, null and void - Though relief of permanent injunction has also been claimed but it emanates from the cancellation itself and does not become any substantive relief by its own nature - When possession of the land has not been disturbed and one of the member of the family has prima-facie duped and defrauded the petitioner for getting the sale deed executed in his and his wife's name and the only relief sought is declaration by the petitioner who is poor and helpless illiterate Parda Nashin old woman, considering substance of the pleadings of the plaintiff as also the attending circumstances for affixation of court fee, it is held that no ad-valorem court fee is payable. (176) P.L.R.
  32. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  7, Rule 11 - Question of limitation is not purely a question of law, it is mixed question of law and facts and plaint cannot be rejected on ground of limitation if disputed facts are involved - Disputing facts are involved - Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is disputing the receipt as well as the agreement to sell cannot be decided in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - It will only be decided after the parties lead evidence. (174) P.L.R.
  33. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  7, Rule 11 - Rejection of plaint - Defendant being a Public Limited Company, for all intents and purposes, is governed by Section 100 of the Companies Act for making payment by way of return capital - Moreover, as per Section 10 of the Companies Act, jurisdiction of civil Court is barred and it was the only Company Court which can entertain an application made by the corporation for return of its share capital - Companies Act, 1956 (11 of 1956) S. 10, 100. (179) P.L.R.
  34. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  7, Rule 11 - Rejection of plaint - Further reason why the petitioner could not have the benefit of rejection of the plaint - The petition for rejection itself has been moved after the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence and when it was the turn of the defendant to examine himself and when he was even cross-examined - The application for rejection was surely not bona fide .  (182) P.L.R.
  35. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  7, Rule 11 - Rejection of plaint - Suit against the defendant company and its officers, for declaration to the effect that notice of termination issued by the defendant company is illegal, void and against the public policy, to direct it to comply with the contractual obligations prior to terminate the services of plaintiff and to award exemplary damages for his victimization by the company - As to whether the contract of employment between the parties is voluntary & genuine or otherwise, whether its terms & conditions were violated or not and what is its effect, would be the moot points to be decided during the course of trial after receiving the evidence by the trial Court - Application dismissed - Order upheld - Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963) S. 14. (174) P.L.R.
  36. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  7, Rule 11 - Rejection of plaint - That partition proceedings were not conducted with prescribed procedure - It is settled principle that the Civil Court's jurisdiction is there to examine whether the procedure followed under the Act has been scrupulously adhered to - Specific allegations of fraud has been levelled by the plaintiff against the defendant as to how partition proceedings had been conducted at his back and allegedly, munadi had been got conducted and the defendant No.1 was never in possession - Application for rejection of plaint dismissed - Order upheld - Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (17 of 1887) S. 158.  (178) P.L.R.
  37. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  7, Rule 11 - Rejection of plaint for want of proper Court fee - Application dismissed - In a case of non-executant of the sale deed, in possession of the suit property, seeking declaration that the sale deed is null and void, a fixed Court fee of Rs.19.50/- is to be paid, but if such plaintiff/non-executant is not in possession of the suit property and prays for consequential relief of possession as well in the suit for declaration, then ad valorem Court fee has to be paid. (177) P.L.R.
  38. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  7, Rule 11 - Rejection of plaint will be considered taking the plaint averments to be correct and not on what is objected by defendant. (180) P.L.R.
  39. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  7, Rule 11 - Rejection of the plaint on the ground of deficiency in Court fee - In case of challenge to a sale deed by a party thereto, the suit is to be valued on the basis of consideration shown in the sale deed and the court fee paid accordingly - In my opinion, the impugned order passed by the learned court below directing deposit of advalorem court fee on the market value of the suit property in question deserves to be set aside - Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870). (178) P.L.R.
  40. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  7, Rule 11 - Resjudicata - Petitioner had earlier moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, which was dismissed - The principle of res judicata is applicable to the second application - When the petitioners have already moved application for the same relief which was dismissed, then he cannot claim the same very relief twice. (173) P.L.R.
  41. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  7, Rule 11 - Respondent -plaintiff is only seeking to protect his possession of the property as a tenant - The cause of action to file a suit is stated to be a letter received from the bank threatening to take possession of the property - The right of the petitioner to auction the property is not denied - Further it is claimed that possession can be taken only if there is an order of eviction passed against the respondent-plaintiff - Court below has dismissed the application for rejection of plaint without any reason and the impugned order is liable to be set aside as the suit is barred under Section 34 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Act, 2002 (54 of 2002). (183) P.L.R.
  42. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  7, Rule 11 - Suit for declaration - Claim of the plaintiff is based on coparcenary nature of property of Joint Hindu Family - In such a claim in the main suit, Court fee is not required to be paid as the sale deeds stand in the way of the plaintiff to seek declaration in respect of his claim in the Joint Hindu Family property - Application entertained by the trial Court - Order set aside.   (182) P.L.R.
  43. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  7, Rule 11 - Suit for declaration - If the relief claimed is undervalued and the Court had already passed the order to correct the valuation within a time frame and the party fails to do so, the plaint is liable to be rejected - Undisputedly, this is not the case in hand because by now, no Court has passed any such order that the claim is undervalued and the plaintiff was required to correct the valuation and to affix the Court fee accordingly.(181) P.L.R.
  44. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  7, Rule 11 - There is no doubt that plaint can be rejected, if it fails to disclose any cause of action. (178) P.L.R.
  45. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  7, Rule 11 - Trial Court came to a prima facie conclusion that the suit land is Gairmumkin Bara and does not fall within the municipal limits or abadi deh - Even if the defendants have raised illegal construction over the land of plaintiffs, then, the party seeking relief is not required to pay the ad valorem Court fee on super structure raised on the agricultural land at this stage - In case, the defendants are able to prove by adducing cogent evidence at any subsequent stage that the land in litigation falls within the municipal limits, in that eventuality, the Court would naturally decide the question of Court fee at the final conclusion of the trial and would ask the plaintiffs to pay the deficiency of Court fee (if any) - Application for rejection of plaint - Dismissed - Order upheld. (175) P.L.R.
  46. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  7, Rule 11(a) - Averment made in the pleading especially in para 10 is not be read in isolation - The whole of paragraph giving the cause of action has to be read in its entirety - No doubt, the respondent herein shows that the cause of action accrued to him for the first time against the respondent when he is purported to have purchased the suit property - Assuming for a moment that no cause of action would have accrued to the respondent and the present appellant/defendant would have filed an application under the under Order 7 Rule 11(a) CPC, the learned trial court would have considered the said plea under the said provision - This has not been done. (177) P.L.R. (Del.)
  47. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  7, Rule 11(c) - As per the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 (c) CPC, a plaint is liable to be rejected where the relief claimed is not properly valued and the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the Court fails to do so - However more time granted for doing the needful. (178) P.L.R. 
  48. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  7, Rule 11(d) - Suit of the plaintiff/respondent cannot, in said circumstances, be dismissed by rejecting the plaint merely on the ground that it is barred by limitation - The plea taken by the defendant/petitioner in the application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC has to be adjudicated along with other pleas, taken in the written statement - It will also to be considered by the trial Court whether the suit of the plaintiff/respondent is maintainable for specific performance or it is maintainable for enhancement of the terms of the compromise, alleged to have been entered into between parties. (179) P.L.R.
  49. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  7, Rule 14 - Production of documents - Delay - Evidence of the plaintiff was yet to commence - Since the list of documents had been filed along with application and showed the photocopy of eight invoices which were to be placed on record - As noticed, these would be relevant documents for purpose of deciding the lis in question inter se the parties and in such circumstances - Plaintiffs are permitted to place on record documents list of which has been reproduced.  (178) P.L.R. 
  50. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  7, Rule 16 - Suit was rested on a plea that the defendant had practiced impersonation and fraudulently obtained the order which was null and void - Order of permanent Lok Adalat challenged - Bar which the law contemplates is what will operate against parties if the proceedings had been taken as per law - If a person says that she had not been served as such and the defendant had practiced impersonation, the order so obtained cannot be an order in the eye of law to which the provision could apply - The defendant will have to take, therefore, a heavy burden cast on him to prove that there was no impersonation - The suit is properly laid and the rejection of the plaint sought was rightly dismissed - Legal Service Authority Act, 1987 (39 of 1987) S. 22(C).  (182) P.L.R.
  51. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  7, Rule 17 - Issue framed pertained entirely to the original relief prayed for in the suit, which was directed primarily against the original defendant No.1-DSIIDC and the appellant - The respondent/plaintiff had sought to completely give up the said relief and to seek deletion of DSIIDC from the array of defendants - It appears that the respondent/plaintiff had taken the said step on account of the framing of additional issue - Pertinently the dissolution deed was accepted by the plaintiff, and he did not seek to challenge the same either on the ground of fraud, misrepresentation or coercion - He did not challenge the dissolution deed either at the time of filing of the suit - Since the firm stood dissolved without any challenge by the respondent/plaintiff within the statutory period of limitation, obviously, the plaintiff had no right to sue on behalf of the firm M/s India Chem in his capacity as a partner when the suit was initially filed. (180) P.L.R. (Del.)