The Central Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors. vs Lala J.R. Education Society and Ors.
- SCC(2016) 14 SCC 679
- Neutral2016 INSC 915
- SCR[2016] 5 SCR 406
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
On an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a court examining whether a plaint discloses no cause of action may only consider the pleadings in the plaint itself and not the written statement or other documents. A suit is not barred merely because a plaintiff has exhausted remedies available under a statutory scheme; if the plaint's main grievance is that the statutory procedure has not been followed, the plaintiff is entitled to file suit notwithstanding the exhaustion of those remedies. Rejection of a plaint on institutional or jurisdictional grounds under Order VII, Rule 11 is distinct from dismissal of a suit at the pre-trial stage on grounds of maintainability; where maintainability is challenged as a preliminary issue before trial, the court may examine the entire case record including documents furnished by the defendant, and the trial court shall determine such preliminary issue in accordance with law.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
THE CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, NEW DELHI AND ORS. APPELLANTS
VERSUS
LALA J.R. EDUCATION SOCIETY AND ORS. RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN,J.
1 Delay condoned.
2 Leave granted.
3 Appellants are aggrieved since the application filed under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC has been rejected.
4 According to the appellants, the respondents having exhausted all the remedies under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, cannot thereafter approach the Civil Court, which is barred under Section 7L(4) of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
5 On an application filed under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC, the Civil Court can only see the pleadings in the plaint and not anything else including written statement.
- 2 -
6. The main grievance urged in the plaint is that the procedure under the Act has not been followed and, therefore, the appellants are entitled to file a suit. If that be so, the plaintiff is entitled to file a suit, as held by this Court in the case of Dhulabhai and Others Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. reported in (1968) 3 SCR 662.
7. According to the appellants, the respondents have suppressed crucial facts in the plaint, which if seen, the suit is only to be dismissed at the threshold. Rejection of a plaint on institutional grounds is different from dismissal of a suit at pre-trial stage on the ground of maintainability. For dismissal on a preliminary issue, the Court is entitled and liable to look into the entire documents including those furnished by the defendant.
8. In view of the above observations, the appeal is dismissed.
9. However, we permit the appellants to raise a preliminary issue on the maintainability of the suit, in which case, before proceeding with the trial, the trial court shall deal with the same in accordance with law.
No costs.
.................J. [KURIAN JOSEPH]
....................J. [ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN] NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 26, 2016
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free