Separate Applications Under Order VII Rule 11 and Order XXXIX Must Be Adjudicated Individually and Seasonably.

The appellant and respondents are legal heirs of the late Shri Bhanji Ramji Parasiya.

Respondent No. 1 filed Regular Civil Suit No. 82 of 2020 in the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nakhatrana, seeking partition and a 25% share of ancestral properties situated in Nakhatrana.

The appellant filed a counter-claim seeking a 40% share in additional properties situated in West Bengal and Maharashtra, which were not part of the original suit.

The respondents moved applications under Order 6 Rule 16 (Exhibit 33) to strike out the counter-claim pleadings and under Order 7 Rule 11(d) (Exhibit 52) to reject the counter-claim due to lack of territorial jurisdiction.

The Trial Court, via a single common order dated 08/01/2024, allowed the application to strike out pleadings, rejected the counter-claim, and disposed of the appellant's interim injunction application (Exhibit 24).

1. Whether the Trial Court committed a procedural error by deciding applications for striking out pleadings, rejection of a counter-claim, and interim injunction through a single common order without independent reasoning for each.

2. Whether the Court can adjudicate an Order VII Rule 11 application and an Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 application simultaneously without providing an opportunity for hearing and distinct analysis.

The Court applied Sections 16 and 17 of the CPC, which dictate that suits for partition must be instituted where the property is situated, noting that Section 17 allows for jurisdiction in any court where a "portion" of the property resides.

It relied on Order VI Rule 16 regarding the striking of pleadings.

Order VII Rule 11(d) regarding the rejection of a plaint/counter-claim.

Order VIII Rule 6A regarding counter-claims.

The Court applied the principle from Inox India Private Limited v. Cryogas Equipment Private Limited, holding that applications for rejection of a plaint and interim injunction operate on distinct legal planes and cannot be decided via a common order.

The High Court found the Trial Court’s procedure perverse because it decided three distinct applications (Exhibits 24, 33, and 52) under a single heading without affording the appellant an opportunity to be heard on the rejection of the counter-claim.

The Court reasoned that the object of Order VII Rule 11 is to screen the suit at the threshold based solely on the plaint's averments, whereas an interim injunction under Order XXXIX requires an evaluation of evidence to determine a prima facie case.

By merging these inquiries, the Trial Court failed to provide specific reasons for the rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) and failed to exercise independent judicial mind regarding the territorial jurisdiction exceptions under Section 17.

This procedural lapse constituted an error apparent on the face of the record.

The High Court allowed the appeal and quashed the Trial Court’s order dated 08/01/2024.

The matter was remitted to the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nakhatrana, with directions to hear all three applications (Exhibits 24, 33, and 52) afresh and pass separate, reasoned orders for each in accordance with the law.