ALPANA GUPTA vs. APG TOWERS PVT. LTD

NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL  APPEAL Nos. 6411­6412  OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.31539­31540 of 2017) Alpana Gupta ….Appellant(s) Through Power of Attorney holder VERSUS APG Towers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.        ….Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL  APPEAL Nos.6413­6414 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.5318­5319 of 2018) APG Tower Private Ltd. ….Appellant(s) VERSUS Alpana Gupta & Anr. ….Respondent(s)                   J U D G M E N T Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1. S.L.P.(c)   Nos.31539­31540/2017   are   filed Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date: 2019.08.19 17:13:07 IST Reason: against   the   final   judgment   and   order   dated 1 27.07.2017 and 23.08.2017 in CRP Nos. 157/2017 and 99/2017 and S.L.P.(c) Nos. 5318­5319 of 2018 are filed against the final judgment and order dated 27.07.2017   in   C.R.P.   No.99/2017   and   the   order dated 23.08.2017 in CM No.30335 of 2017 in CRP No.99/2017  passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. 2. Leave granted. 3. These appeals involve a short point as would be clear from the facts mentioned hereinbelow. 4. The   appellant   of     CAs   @   SLP   Nos.   31539­ 31340/2017 is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in Civil Suit No.1641/2016 in the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Rohini Courts, Delhi out of which these appeals arise.  5. So far as the connected CAs @ SLP Nos. 5318­ 5319/2018   are   concerned,   these   are   filed   by defendant No.1 of the aforementioned suit against 2 the plaintiff(appellant) and defendant No.2. In this way, all the appeals arise out of the same suit. 6. The   appellant   in   CAs   @   SLP   31539­ 31540/2017   has   filed   the   aforementioned   suit against   the   respondents   for   declaration   and permanent   injunction   and   in   the   alternative   for recovery of damages. The subject matter of suit is a land ­ details of which are described in para 1 of the plaint. It is not necessary to detail the averments on which the suit is filed.  7. Suffice   it   to   say,   the   defendants   filed   an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”)   and   sought   dismissal   of   the   suit.   This application was contested by the plaintiff (appellant in CAs @ SLP 31539­31540/2017). By order dated 16.01.2017,   the   Trial   Court   dismissed   the application giving rise to filing of the revisions by 3 the defendants. By impugned order, the High Court while disposing of the revisions passed the following consequential order which reads as under:  “(i) The   respondent   No.1/plaintiff   is   at liberty to apply for amendment of the th plaint on or before 11  August, 2017. (ii) If the said application is filed, the same shall be considered by the suit Court on its own merits and it will be open to the petitioners/defendants   to   take   all   the pleas in opposition thereto; (iii) However,   if   the   application   for amendment is not filed within the time aforesaid,   then   the   right   to   apply   for amendment  in   pursuance   hereto  shall stand closed and these petitions shall be   deemed   to   have   been   allowed   and the impugned order set aside and the plaint in the suit as existing shall stand rejected.” 8. It   is   against   this   order,   the   plaintiff   felt aggrieved   and   filed   appeals   (CAs   @   SLP   (c) Nos.31539­31540/2017). So far as the defendants are concerned, they also filed the connected appeals 4 (CAs   @   SLP(c)   Nos.5318­5319/2018)   against   the impugned order.   9. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 10. Having   heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are   inclined   to   allow   the   appeals   filed   by   the plaintiff, set aside the impugned order and dismiss the applications filed by the defendants under Order 7   Rule   11   of   the   Code   with   the   following observations. 11. In our opinion, having regard to the nature of controversy   and   keeping   in   view   the   averments made in the plaint coupled with the nature of the objections   raised   by   the   defendants   in   their applications,  the proper course for the defendants is to file their respective written statements, if not so far filed, and raise all the pleas on facts and laws in   their   written   statement   in   support   of   their 5 contentions rather than to raise the pleas by taking recourse to the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code.     In   other   words,   the   pleas   raised   by   the defendants in their applications under Order 7 Rule 11   ought   to   be   raised   in   the   written   statement. Such pleas, in our view, do not fall within any of the clauses of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code.  12. On   such   written   statements   being   filed,   the Trial Court will frame appropriate issues relating to facts and law arising out of the pleadings and try them as provided under Order 14 of the Code on their respective merits.  13. It   is   with   these   observations   and   liberty granted   to   the   parties,   we   allow   CAs   @   SLP(c) Nos.31539­31540/2017 filed by the plaintiff and set aside the impugned order as also the order passed by the Trial Court.  6 14. Needless to say, the Trial Court shall decide the suit strictly in accordance with law on merits without being influenced by any observation made by the Trial Court and the High Court in the present proceedings.  15. In the light of the order passed above in CAs @ SLP(c)Nos.31539­31540/2017),   CAs   @   SLP© Nos.5318­5319/2018 are disposed of.                                      .………...................................J.                                     [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]                                            …...……..................................J.              [R. SUBHASH REDDY] New Delhi; August 19, 2019 7