MADHAV PRASAD AGGARWAL & ANR.versusAXIS BANK LTD. & ANR.

1058                       [2019]
                SUPREME COURT     8 S.C.R. 1058
                               REPORTS                       [2019] 8 S.C.R.


 A                 MADHAV PRASAD AGGARWAL & ANR.
                                         v.
                           AXIS BANK LTD. & ANR.
                          (Civil Appeal No. 5126 of 2019)
 B                                JULY 01, 2019
             [A. M. KHANWILKAR AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
             Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
             Order 7 Rule 11(d) – Rejection of plaint – Relief of rejection
 C     of plaint, sought by one of the defendants – Permissibility – Held:
       In exercise of powers u/Or. 7 r. 11(d) the plaint has to be rejected as
       a whole or not at all – Such relief cannot be pursued only in respect
       of one of the defendants – In the present case rejection of plaint
       only qua respondent No. 1 by the High Court in exercise of powers
       u/Or. 7 r. 11(d) was replete with jurisdictional error.
 D
             Allowing the appeals, the Court
              HELD : 1. The plaint can and must be rejected in exercise
       of powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC on account of non-
       compliance of mandatory requirements or being replete with any
 E     institutional deficiency at the time of presentation of the plaint,
       ascribable to clauses (a) to (f) of Rule 11 of Order 7 of CPC. The
       plaint as presented must proceed as a whole or can be rejected
       as a whole but not in part. In that sense, the relief claimed by
       respondent No.1 in the notice of motion(s) which commended to
       the High Court, is clearly a jurisdictional error. The fact that one
 F     or some of the reliefs claimed against respondent No.1 in the
       concerned suit is barred by Section 34 of 2002 Act or otherwise,
       such objection can be raised by invoking other remedies including
       under Order 6 Rule 16 of CPC at the appropriate stage. That can
       be considered by the Court on its own merits and in accordance
 G     with law. Although, the High Court has examined those
       matters in the impugned judgment the same should stand effaced.
       [Para 13] [1069-B-E]
             2. A fortiori, the appeals must succeed on the sole ground
       that the principal relief claimed in the notice of motion filed by
 H
                                        1058
     MADHAV PRASAD AGGARWAL v. AXIS BANK LTD.                       1059


respondent No.1 to reject the plaint only qua the said respondent   A
and which commended to the High Court, is replete with
jurisdictional error. Such a relief “cannot be entertained” in
exercise of power under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC. That power
is limited to rejection of the plaint as a whole or not at all.
[Para 15] [1069-G-H; 1070-A]
                                                                    B
     Sejal Glass Limited v. Navilan Merchants Private Limited
     (2018) 11 SCC 780 : [2017] 7 SCR 557 – relied on.
     Mardia Chemicals Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and
     Ors. (2004) 4 SCC 311 : [2004] 3 SCR 982 ; Jagdish
     Singh v. Heeralal and Ors. (2014) 1 SCC 479 : [2013]           C
     12 SCR 232 ; State Bank of India v. Smt. Jigishaben B.
     Sanghvi and Ors. 2011 (3) Bom. C. R. 187 ; Arasa
     Kumar v. Nauammal II (2015) BC 127 ; M.V. “Sea
     Success I” v. Liverpool and London Steamship
     Protection and Indemnity Association Ltd. and Ors. AIR
     2002 Bombay 151 ; Nahar Industrial Enterprises                 D
     Limited v. Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking
     Corporation (2009) 8 SCC 646 : [2009] 12 SCR 54
     – referred to.
                    Case Law Reference
[2004] 3 SCR 982           referred to                Para 7        E
[2013] 12 SCR 232          referred to                Para 7
2011 (3) Bom. C. R. 187    referred to                Para 7
(2015) BC 127              referred to                Para 7
AIR 2002 Bombay 151        referred to                Para 7        F
[2017] 7 SCR 557           relied on                  Para 9
[2009] 12 SCR 54           referred to                Para 14
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5126
of 2019.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 26.10.2018 of the High      G
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Appeal No. 360 of 2017.
     With
     Civil Appeal Nos. 5127, 5128, 5129 of 2019.
                                                                    H
1060             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2019] 8 S.C.R.


 A           Mukul Rohtagi, Shyam Divan, Sr. Advs., Satyam Vaishnav,
       Ms. Rukhmani Bobde, Tanuj Agarwal, Manu Bajaj, Govind Manoharan
       (for M/S. Parekh & Co.), Siddhesh Kotwal, Ms. Bansuri Swaraj,
       Ms. Shreya Bhatnagar, Raghunatha Sethupathy, Gagan Narang,
       Ms. Arshiya Ghose, Ms. Astha Sharma, Nirnimesh Dube, Advs. for the
       Appellants.
 B
             Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Advs., Bishwajit
       Dubey, Bhalchandra Palav, Ms. Srideepa Bhattachryya, Ms. Ruchi
       Choudhury, Lalltaksh Joshi, (for M/S. Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas),
       Abhimanyu Bhandari, Ms. Ashima Singhal, Naveen Kumar, Advs. for
       the Respondents.
 C
             The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
             A. M. KHANWILKAR, J. 1. Leave granted.
              2. These appeals take exception to the common judgment and
       order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Ordinary
 D     Original Civil Jurisdiction) in Appeal Nos.360, 361, 362 and Commercial
       Appeal No.172 of 2017 dated 26th October, 2018, whereby the notice of
       motion(s) filed by respondent No.1-Axis Bank Ltd. (one of the defendant
       in the suits filed by the respective appellant(s)) came to be allowed and
       as a result of which, the suit filed by the concerned appellant(s) had
 E     been dismissed as against respondent No.1-Axis Bank Ltd., by invoking
       the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code (for
       short “CPC”).
               3. The appellant(s) being the original plaintiff(s) in the respective
       suit(s) wanted to purchase flats in a project known as ‘Orbit Heaven’
 F     (for short “the project”) being developed by Orbit Corporation Ltd. (In
       Liq.) (for short “The builder”), at Nepean Sea Road in Mumbai and in
       furtherance thereof parted with huge amounts of money to the builder
       ranging in several crores although the construction of the project was
       under way. The appellant(s) had started paying installments towards the
       consideration of the concerned flats from 2009. Admittedly, no registered
 G     agreement/document for purchase of concerned flats has been executed
       in favour of respective appellant(s). The appellant(s), however, would
       rely on the correspondence and including the letter of allotment issued
       by the builder in respect of concerned flats - to assert that there was an
       agreement between them and the builder in respect of the earmarked
 H     flat(s) mentioned therein and which had statutory protection.
     MADHAV PRASAD AGGARWAL v. AXIS BANK LTD.                                 1061
              [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

       4. The respondent No.1-bank gave loan facility to builder against      A
the project only around year 2013, aggregating to principal sum of Rupees
150 Crores in respect of which a mortgage deed is said to have been
executed between the builder and the bank. That transaction came to
the notice of the concerned plaintiff(s) only after publication of a public
notice on 13th September, 2016 in Economic Times, informing the general
                                                                              B
public that the said project (Orbit Heaven) has been mortgaged. The
sum and substance of the assertion made by the appellant(s) is that the
appellant(s) were kept in the dark whilst the mortgage transaction was
executed between the builder and the bank whereunder their rights have
been unilaterally jeopardised, to receive possession of the concerned
flats earmarked in the allotment letter(s) and in respect of which the        C
concerned appellant(s) have paid substantial contribution and the
aggregate contribution of all the plaintiff(s) would be much more than
the loan amount given by the bank to the builder in terms of the mortgage
deed for the entire project. In this backdrop, the concerned appellant(s)
had asked for reliefs not only against the builder but also concerned
                                                                              D
parties joined as defendant(s) in the suit(s) filed by them and including
respondent No.1-bank.
       5. The reliefs claimed by the concerned appellant(s) in separate
suit(s) filed by them are more or less similar. We may presently refer to
the reliefs claimed in suit No.8 of 2017 filed by Padma Ashok Bhatt
(appellant in civil appeal arising from SLP (C) No.30900 of 2018), the        E
same read thus:
            “The Plaintiff therefore prays:
            (a) That the Defendant No.1 be ordered and decreed to
                complete the Flat Nos.2302 and 2402 in the Project            F
                “Orbit Haven” situate at Darabshaw Lane, Nepean Sea
                Road, Mumbai-400036 as per the agreement being letter
                of confirmation dated 16 th April 2009 and receipts
                executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of the Plaintiff
                and hand over the possession of Flat Nos.2302 and 2402
                to the Plaintiff and that the Defendant No.1 and              G
                Defendant No.15 be jointly and/or severally be ordered
                and directed to comply with all the obligations under
                Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act including, but not
                limited to, (i) the execution of the Agreement in terms
                of Section 4 of Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, (ii)         H
1062   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2019] 8 S.C.R.


 A          completing the building as per the sanction plan as
            sanctioned by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai,
            (iii) to delivery vacant and peaceful possession of the
            respective flats, (iv) to form the Society or body of the
            Corporation as provided under Maharashtra Ownership
            Flats Act and to convey the land along with the building
 B
            in favour of the Society or body of Corporation as per
            Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act.
        (b) That the Plaintiff is also entitled for a declaration that
            there is no legal, valid enforceable lien, charge or
            mortgage in favour of Defendant No.15 in respect of
 C          the building or any part thereof known as Orbit Haven,
            situated at Darabshaw Lane, Napeansea Road,
            Mumbai-400036;
        (c) The Defendant No.1 be also ordered and directed to
            disclose all their assets, properties including the personal
 D          properties of the Directors and its sister concern
            particularly M/s Apex Hotel Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. on
            Affidavit before this Hon’ble Court, within the period
            of two weeks or such other time as this Hon’ble Court
            may deem fit and proper;
 E      (d) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass an order of
            injunction restraining the Defendant No.1 from in any
            manner creating any third party rights in respect of all
            the properties that may be disclosed by the Defendant
            No.1, pursuant to the orders of this Hon’ble Court on
 F          Affidavit;
        (e) The Plaintiff is also entitled for an order and direction
            that the Defendant No.1 be ordered and directed to give
            clear and marketable title in respect of flat being Flat
            Nos.2302 and 2402 and the building Orbit Haven,
 G          situated at Darabshaw Lane, Napeansea Road,
            Mumbai-400036 and to enter into and register the
            Agreement as provided under the provisions of
            Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act;
        (f) The Defendant No.1 be also ordered and directed to
            indemnify the Plaintiff in respect of all claims, charges
 H
MADHAV PRASAD AGGARWAL v. AXIS BANK LTD.                             1063
         [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

        that may be made by anybody in respect of Flat Nos.2302      A
        and 2402 at Orbit Haven, situated at Darabshaw Lane,
        Napeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 and keep the same
        indemnified till the registration of the Agreement and
        Conveyance of the land in favour of the Society that
        may be formed;
                                                                     B
        (f1) Without prejudice to the reliefs as claimed
        hereinabove and in the alternative and in the event this
        Hon’ble Court comes to the conclusion that the specific
        performance of the suit flat cannot or ought not to be
        granted, in such an event, the Plaintiff is entitled for
        refund of the amount of Rs.9,23,50,000/- (Rupees Nine        C
        Crores Twenty Three Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) paid
        by the Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 along with interest
        thereon @12% from the date of payment till repayment
        and cost.
        (f2) It be declared that the payment of the amount as        D
        stated in prayer (f1) stands validly charged on the land
        and in the flat Nos.2302 and 2402.
        (f3) In the event of failure to pay the amount as stated
        in prayer (f1), directions be issued for enforcement of
        the Plaintiff’s charge upon the suit plot of land and Flat   E
        Nos.2302 and 2402.
        (f4) In addition to the amount as prayed in prayer (f1)
        the Defendant be also ordered and decreed to pay
        damages of Rs.15,00,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Crores
        Only) to the Plaintiff.                                      F
    (g) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to appoint Court
        Receiver, High Court, Bombay, as Receiver under all
        powers under Order XL Rule 1 of Code of Civil
        Procedure, in respect of suit building Orbit Haven and
        the Plot of Land being Plot No.12, 8, Darabshaw Road,        G
        Off Nepean Sea Road, admeasuring 1105.00 square
        yards i.e. 923.92 sq. mtrs. Or thereabouts and registered
        with Collector of Land Revenue under Collector’s Old
        Nos.573 and 104A and Collector’s New Nos.2736 and
        11317 old Survey No.48 and New Survey Nos.3 and 4/
                                                                     H
1064   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2019] 8 S.C.R.


 A         7139 and Cadastral Survey Nos.8/593 of Malabar Hill
           and Cumballa Hill Division bearing Municipal Ward
           No.D-3326 (4) and Street No.76(a), to do following
           things and/or such other things as this Hon’ble Court
           may deem fit and proper:-
 B         i.      To take complete charge of the said building;
           ii.     To call for the balance money from the Flat
                   Purchasers as mentioned in Exhibit ‘E’, being
                   Plaintiff and Defendant Nos.2 to 14;
           iii.    To execute the Agreement for and on behalf of
 C                 Defendant No.1 with the Plaintiff as provided
                   under the provisions of MOFA on payment of
                   stamp duty, registration charges and all other
                   incidental charges to be paid by the Plaintiff;
           iv.     To pay all requisite fees to Municipal
 D                 Corporation of Greater Mumbai as may be
                   required for further progress of the work;
           v.      To appoint the existing Architect, who are the
                   Architect to complete the said Project;
           vi.     To appoint the existing Contractor of the said
 E
                   building, to complete the work;
           vii.    To appoint the existing Structural Engineer who
                   have already been the Structural Engineer of
                   the said Project;
 F         viii.   To pay all fees/charges in respect of the
                   aforesaid persons;
           ix.     To regularly submit report to this Hon’ble Court
                   with regard to the progress and any other
                   measures that may be required for completion
 G                 of the Project;
           x.      To make all application to Corporation and all
                   other Semi-Government Authorities as may be
                   required for completing the said building Orbit
                   Haven.
 H
     MADHAV PRASAD AGGARWAL v. AXIS BANK LTD.                                  1065
              [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

                 xi.      After completion of the Project, to apply for        A
                          Occupancy Certificate and Completion
                          Certificate.
                 xii.     To hand over the flats after completion to the
                          Plaintiff.
             (h) Interim and ad-interim in terms of prayers (c) to (g) be      B
                 granted;
             (i) Cost of the suit be provided;
             (j) Such further and other reliefs as the nature and
                 circumstances of the case may require be granted.”            C
       6. The respondent No.1-bank (defendant No.15) appeared in the
concerned suit and filed a notice of motion for identical relief, as claimed
in notice of motion No.1206 of 2017 in suit No.8 of 2017. The relief
claimed in the subject notice of motion(s) was limited to reject the plaint
qua respondent No.1 herein, in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule           D
11(d) of CPC on the ground that the suit(s) against the said respondent
would be barred by provisions of Section 34 of The Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest
Act, 2002 (for short “2002 Act”). The reliefs claimed in notice of motion
No.1206 of 2017 in suit No.8 of 2017, read thus:
                                                                               E
      “(a) That the plaint in suit no.8 of 2017 be rejected qua the
      applicant/defendant No.15;
      (b) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the Notice of
      Motion the suit be stayed;
      (c) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the notice of         F
      motion the status-quo granted vide dated 3rd March, 2017, of this
      Hon’ble Court be vacated;
      (d) for ad-interim relief in terms of prayers (b) and (c) above;
      (e) for such further and other relief as the nature and
      circumstances of the case may require; and                               G

       (f) costs.”
                                                      (emphasis supplied)

                                                                               H
1066             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2019] 8 S.C.R.


 A            As aforementioned, the reliefs claimed in the plaint and the notice
       of motion in the respective suit(s) which are the subject matter of the
       present set of appeals are similar, albeit with minor variation. That,
       however, need not detain us from considering the common question which
       has arisen for our consideration in the present appeals.
 B             7. Be that as it may, the notice of motion(s) in the concerned
       appeals came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the High
       Court by a common judgment dated 26th July, 2017, on the finding that
       there was no bar from entertaining civil suit(s) in respect of any other
       matter which is outside the scope of matters required to be determined
       by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (for short “DRT”) constituted under
 C     2002 Act. The learned Single Judge held that the facts of the present
       case clearly indicate that the cause of action and the reliefs claimed by
       the concerned plaintiff(s) fell within the excepted category and the bar
       under Section 34 read with Section 17 of 2002 Act would be no
       impediment in adjudicating the subject matter of the concerned suit. The
 D     learned Single Judge referred to decisions of this Court in Mardia
       Chemicals Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.1, Jagdish
       Singh Vs. Heeralal and Ors.2 and of High Courts in State Bank of
       India Vs. Smt. Jigishaben B. Sanghvi and Ors.3 and Arasa Kumar
       Vs. Nauammal4. However, the learned Single Judge rejected the
       argument/objection raised by the appellant(s) that it is impermissible to
 E     reject the plaint only against one of the defendant(s), in exercise of power
       under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC by relying on the decision of the
       Division Bench of the same High Court in M.V. “Sea Success I” Vs.
       Liverpool and London Steamship Protection and Indemnity
       Association Ltd. and Ors.5 As the notice of motion moved by respondent
 F     No.1-bank came to be dismissed, respondent No.1 carried the matter in
       appeal before the Division Bench by way of separate five appeals in the
       concerned suit. All these appeals came to be allowed by the Division
       Bench vide impugned judgment.
             8. The impugned judgment has reversed the opinion of the learned
 G     Single Judge that bar under Section 34 will not come in the way of the
       appellants/plaintiffs. The Division Bench also opined that the averments
       1
         (2004) 4 SCC 311
       2
         (2014) 1 SCC 479
       3
         2011 (3) Bom. C. R. 187
       4
         II (2015) BC 127
 H     5
         AIR 2002 BOMBAY 151
        MADHAV PRASAD AGGARWAL v. AXIS BANK LTD.                               1067
                 [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

in the concerned plaint do not spell out the case of fraud committed by        A
the bank and/or the builder. As a result of which, the Court held that the
suit(s) instituted by the appellant(s) did not come within the excepted
category predicated in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. (supra) and thus the
plaint against respondent No.1-bank was not maintainable, being barred
by Section 34 of the 2002 Act.
                                                                               B
        9. Feeling aggrieved, out of the five plaintiff(s) only four of them
have chosen to file the present appeals. They have assailed every reason
assigned by the Division Bench both on facts and the law. It is urged
that the plaint cannot be rejected only against one of the defendant(s)
but it could be rejected as a whole. To buttress this contention reliance
has been placed on Sejal Glass Limited Vs. Navilan Merchants Private           C
Limited6. According to the appellant(s), even otherwise the decisions
considered by the High Court to hold against the appellant(s) that the
suit(s) filed by them were barred by Section 34 of 2002 Act were in
applicable to the fact situation of the present case being a case of third
party claiming right under an agreement which has the statutory protection     D
under the provisions of The Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation
of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act,
1963 (for short “1963 Act”). The appellant(s) would also urge that the
bar under Section 34 has no bearing on the subject matter of the suit
filed by the respective appellant(s) and the nature of reliefs claimed by
them including against respondent No.1-bank. The presence of                   E
respondent No.1 in the said suit would be proper, even if not a necessary
party. It is urged that the impugned judgment cannot be countenanced.
       10. Per contra, respondent No.1-bank would urge that the Division
Bench was justified in allowing the notice of motion filed by respondent
No.1-bank to reject the plaint qua the bank being barred by Section 34         F
of the 2002 Act. According to the said respondent, the appellant(s) are
not genuine home buyers but are investors of developers i.e. Orbit
Corporation Ltd. (In Liq.). Due to the close acquaintance/business
relationship, the concerned appellant(s) took commercial unsecured risk
by purportedly investing huge amount under the guise of purchasing flats       G
and entered into transactions which were contrary to the provisions of
1963 Act. Thus, the appellant(s) cannot claim any right merely on the
basis of a self-serving allotment letter pertaining to the concerned flat,

6
    (2018) 11 SCC 780                                                          H
1068             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2019] 8 S.C.R.


 A     purportedly given by the builder. Noticeably, contends learned counsel
       for respondent No.1 that the averments in the plaint(s) regarding allegation
       of fraud played upon the appellant(s) are vague and general. The same
       are baseless and unsubstantiated. Rather, no case can be culled out
       from the averments in the plaint so as to hold that the suit filed by the
       concerned appellant(s) comes within the excepted category predicated
 B
       in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. (supra). Respondent No.1 has supported
       the impugned judgment of the Division Bench and would contend that
       the bank is not a necessary or even a proper party to suit for specific
       performance of the alleged agreement and including in relation to
       alternative relief of damages claimed against the developers.
 C            11. We do not deem it necessary to elaborate on all other arguments
       as we are inclined to accept the objection of the appellant(s) that the
       relief of rejection of plaint in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule
       11(d) of CPC cannot be pursued only in respect of one of the defendant(s).
       In other words, the plaint has to be rejected as a whole or not at all, in
 D     exercise of power Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC. Indeed, the learned
       Single Judge rejected this objection raised by the appellant(s) by relying
       on the decision of the Division Bench of the same High Court. However,
       we find that the decision of this Court in the case of Sejal Glass Limited
       (supra) is directly on the point. In that case, an application was filed by
       the defendant(s) under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC stating that the plaint
 E     disclosed no cause of action. The civil court held that the plaint is to be
       bifurcated as it did not disclose any cause of action against the director’s
       defendant(s) 2 to 4 therein. On that basis, the High Court had opined
       that the suit can continue against defendant No.1-company alone. The
       question considered by this Court was whether such a course is open to
 F     the civil court in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC.
       The Court answered the said question in the negative by adverting to
       several decisions on the point which had consistently held that the plaint
       can either be rejected as a whole or not at all. The Court held that it is
       not permissible to reject plaint qua any particular portion of a plaint
       including against some of the defendant(s) and continue the same against
 G     the others. In no uncertain terms the Court has held that if the plaint
       survives against certain defendant(s) and/or properties, Order 7 Rule
       11(d) of CPC will have no application at all, and the suit as a whole must
       then proceed to trial.

 H
        MADHAV PRASAD AGGARWAL v. AXIS BANK LTD.                                1069
                 [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

        12. In view of this settled legal position we may now turn to the       A
nature of reliefs claimed by respondent No.1 in the notice of motion
considered by the Single Judge in the first instance and then the Division
Bench of the High Court of Bombay. The principal or singular substantive
relief is to reject the plaint only qua the applicant/respondent No.1 herein.
No more and no less.
                                                                                B
       13. Indubitably, the plaint can and must be rejected in exercise of
powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC on account of non-compliance
of mandatory requirements or being replete with any institutional
deficiency at the time of presentation of the plaint, ascribable to clauses
(a) to (f) of Rule 11 of Order 7 of CPC. In other words, the plaint as
presented must proceed as a whole or can be rejected as a whole but             C
not in part. In that sense, the relief claimed by respondent No.1 in the
notice of motion(s) which commended to the High Court, is clearly a
jurisdictional error. The fact that one or some of the reliefs claimed
against respondent No.1 in the concerned suit is barred by Section 34 of
2002 Act or otherwise, such objection can be raised by invoking other           D
remedies including under Order 6 Rule 16 of CPC at the appropriate
stage. That can be considered by the Court on its own merits and in
accordance with law. Although, the High Court has examined those
matters in the impugned judgment the same, in our opinion, should stand
effaced and we order accordingly.
                                                                                E
       14. Resultantly, we do not wish to dilate on the argument of the
appellant(s) about the inapplicability of the judgments taken into account
by the Division Bench of the High Court or for that matter the correctness
of the dictum in the concerned judgment on the principle underlying the
exposition in Nahar Industrial Enterprises Limited Vs. Hong Kong
and Shanghai Banking Corporation7 to the effect that the DRT and                F
also the appellate authority cannot pass a decree nor it is open to it to
enter upon determination in respect of matters beyond the scope of power
or jurisdiction endowed in terms of Section 17 of the 2002 Act. We leave
all questions open to be decided afresh on its own merits in accordance
with law.                                                                       G
       15. A fortiori, these appeals must succeed on the sole ground that
the principal relief claimed in the notice of motion filed by respondent
No.1 to reject the plaint only qua the said respondent and which

7
    (2009) 8 SCC 646                                                            H
1070             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2019] 8 S.C.R.


 A     commended to the High Court, is replete with jurisdictional error. Such a
       relief “cannot be entertained” in exercise of power under Order 7 Rule
       11(d) of CPC. That power is limited to rejection of the plaint as a whole
       or not at all.
              16. In view of the above, these appeals are allowed. Resultantly,
 B     the impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High
       Court in the concerned appeals are set-aside and instead the order of
       the learned Single Judge dismissing the notice of motion(s) in the
       concerned suit(s), is restored. Thus, the notice of motion taken out by
       respondent No.1 in the concerned suit(s) are dismissed with liberty to
       respondent No.1, as aforementioned. All pending interim applications
 C     are also disposed of. No order as to costs.


       Kalpana K. Tripathy                                        Appeals allowed.


 D




 E




 F




 G




 H