This common order of the Madurai Bench of the Hon’ble Madras High Court dated 16.07.2021 in Selvaraj & Ors., Vs Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plaint India Limited & Ors., [2021 (4) CTC 539] discusses in detail the role of the Court registry while scrutinizing plaint and other case papers before numbering them.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
This is a common order passed while deciding five Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. All these cases carry forward similar grievances and have common complaints:
- First, the objections raised by the registry while scrutinizing petition on the Original Side of the District Courts seem as if they are made by the Defendants to the petitions. i.e., such objections are only relevant for final adjudication and not in the registering process.
- Secondly, objections are raised in instalments by the registry and not at the same time.
- Thirdly, a plaint is not scrutinised for weeks or months and hence not returned or taken on file.
ISSUE:
Whether negligent or excessive scrutinising of plaints before numbering is obstructive of right to access justice and is arbitrary?
ARGUMENTS:
- Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code states that Courts shall try all civil suits until and unless its specifically barred. This section furthers the principle ‘Ubi jus ibi remedium’ which is the bedrock of civil justice system. But, with such delay and baseless objection from the registry, such right is infringed.
- The Process of converting a plaint into a suit is an administrative and ministerial act of the Court. Here, no adjudication is involved in this step. Hence, Courts should not act in judicial capacity while registering a plaint. The Registry should not act as a Defendant and raise objections.
- Order VII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 specifies the circumstances under which plaints can be returned. The Courts do not have power to go over and beyond the Order to make procedural requirements.
- The Registry should not have power to return the plaint multiple times, inventing newer grounds for each successive return. Such an act is arbitrary in nature.
- When a plaint is not filed as an emergent case, they are taken up for scrutiny without any outer time limit. This causes obstruction in justice by causing huge delays.
ANALYSIS AND RESEARCH:
- The Court analysed Order IV Rule 1 which provides for institution of a suit. It states that every plaint should comply with rules in Order VI and Order VII. Order VI broadly states what the pleadings generally shall contain and Order VII prescribes what plaint shall state in general. These Orders specify how far the Court can filter a plaint. None of the above-mentioned issues are included in the ambit of such Orders.
- Registration of a plaint is a mere ministerial work and does not involve adjudication. The Court analysed the difference between an administrative/ ministerial wok and adjudicatory/judicial act; the former involves scrutinizing the plaint that does not require any elaborate distillation of fact-finding whereas the latter requires an application of judicial mind where the Court is required to understand the contents of the plaint on a plane of law. Hence, matters of adjudication cannot be scrutinized by the Registry.
- At what stage a plaint can be returned was analysed by the Court. The procedure involved in vetting a plaint for numbering in the pre-registration stage must be considered only as a preliminary stage. And for curing defects at that stage, a plaint can be returned and this is part of the activities of the preliminary stage. Hence, a plaint can be returned only in the preliminary stage post registration. Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code provides for certain grounds like the lack of jurisdiction, under which Court has the power to return during pre-registration stage but that is limited. Therefore, it may be stated as a general rule that the Courts, at the preregistration stage of the plaint, should confine the scope of its scrutiny to the barest minimum which a ministerial act may require.
- Cause of Action and its merit cannot be the cause to return a plaint in it’s preliminary stage until and unless the allegation in the plaint does not constitute a legal right.
- For the issue of maintainability, the court observed that until and unless a plaint is expressly limited by a statute, the maintainability of a plaint cannot be challenged by the Court. The Court relied on the judgement of Ganga Bai V Vijay Kumar (1974) 2 SCC 393 to further its point. A very clear analysis and legal mind is required to return a plaint due to maintainability.
- Issue of limitation is better analysed in trial stage. However, if there is a clear bar, the plaint can be questioned on limitation. Even in such extreme cases, the ideal course is to number the suit, and dismiss it under Section 3 of the Limitation Act even before admitting the same and issuing summons to the Plaintiff.
JUDGEMENT AND CONCLUSION:
To sum up, the Court may reject the plaint before numbering and entering it in the Register of Suits, if from a reading of the plaint, it is seen that the suit is barred by any law, or if it suffers from any procedural infirmity. The Court, at that stage, cannot and is not expected to conduct a roving enquiry into the merits of the matter by testing the correctness of the plaint- averments even prior to its institution. Further, for curing any of the permissible defects, no court shall return the plaint more than once.
Finally, the Court found in all the Revision petitions, the Court(s) concerned have conducted mini-trials at the stage of numbering the suit which is inconsistent with the parameters set out. Consequently, CRP(MD)Nos.915, 967, 991 and 330 of 2020 are allowed and the orders under challenge are set aside.
(This judgment was summarised by our intern, Ms. Jaya Roshini pursuing law at the Tamil Nadu National Law University.)
Comments