In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized that a civil plaint containing multiple reliefs cannot be dismissed entirely just because one of the reliefs is barred by law. The Court held that as long as at least one relief remains valid and within the jurisdiction of the civil court, the plaint must be allowed to proceed.
The bench, comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, addressed a case involving the SARFAESI Act. The plaintiff in this case sought three reliefs: two related to ownership and title over property collateralized for a bank loan, and one seeking possession restoration under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. While the Civil Court had jurisdiction over the first two reliefs, the third fell exclusively within the purview of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT).
The Supreme Court clarified that a plaint could not be rejected partially under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The Court explained that making adverse observations about reliefs outside the court’s jurisdiction during such applications could inadvertently prejudice the plaintiff’s case in other forums.
The ruling underscored that even if one relief is legally barred, the remaining valid claims should proceed without interference. “If one relief survives, the plaint cannot be rejected,” the Court stated.
This judgment reaffirms the principle that civil courts must carefully distinguish between barred and valid claims without prematurely dismissing an entire plaint, ensuring justice is not denied on procedural grounds.
