Order VII Rule 11 is not Exhaustive – SC

In the case of K. Akbar Ali v. K. Umar Khan (SLP 31844/18), the apex court observed that the order VII and rule 11 which talks about rejection of plaint is not exhaustive is nature.SC also observe that court has the inherent power to see that frivolous or vexatious litigations are not allowed to consume the time of the Court .

Petitioner filed a civil suit in the original side of Madras HC challenging the sale deed of 2010 executed by defendant to other defendants on the ground that there is pre-emption agreement executed between the plaintiff and the defendant. Agreement us said to be executed on the basis of power of attorney executed by the defendant in the favour of his son on 1989.

The defendant had given a power of attorney to her son Zahir Ali to maintain and administer the suit property.The defendants moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, contending that there is no Power of Attorney authorizing Zakir Ali to enter into any sale or preemption agreement.

The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the application and rejected the plaint holding that the Power of Attorney does not authorize the attorney to execute an agreement as the Power of Attorney was granted for conduct of Court proceedings only.Petitioner argued that clause 6 of POA “to do lawful, as my said attorney deems fit and just on my behalf” authorizes the attorney to take all the steps which are necessary and proper.

Such aspects has not been appreciated by the DB of HC in proper perspective.In this plea, the question before the SC is whether the plaint discloses any cause of action or whether the suit is barred by any law, on the face of the averments contained in the plaint itself.

The court observed that on a meaningful reading of the plaint in its entirety that the plaintiff has no cause of action against the first defendant being the owner of the suit property, the Power of Attorney being patently invalid.

The Division Bench of the High Court has done substantial justice by nipping in the bud, a suit which is ex facie not maintainable for want of cause of action against the defendants or any of them, thereby saving precious judicial time as also inconvenience and expenditure to the parties to the suit, the bench said while dismissing the SLP.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s