Summary
Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC permits rejection of a plaint as a whole, not rejection only against one defendant while the suit continues against others. Axis Bank’s motions sought only partial rejection against itself and therefore could not be entertained under that provision. The substantive SARFAESI jurisdictional objections and the parties’ rights were left open for appropriate proceedings, with the High Court’s findings on those matters effaced.
Issues
- Whether a plaint could be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) solely against the bank.
- Whether the substantive statutory-bar objections should be decided in these appeals.
Held
- A plaint surviving against other defendants or properties cannot be partly rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d). The plaint must proceed as a whole or be rejected as a whole. (¶¶ 11–13, 15)
- The bank’s singular substantive prayer sought rejection only against itself. Granting that relief under Rule 11(d) constituted a jurisdictional error. (¶¶ 12–13, 15)
- Objections that particular reliefs were barred could be raised through other appropriate remedies, including Order VI Rule 16 at the appropriate stage, for determination on their merits. The High Court’s substantive findings were effaced and those questions left open. (¶ 13–14)
Result
Appeals allowed. Division Bench judgment set aside and Single Judge’s dismissal of the bank’s motions restored, with liberty to pursue appropriate remedies as indicated. Pending interim applications disposed of; no costs.