Report No. 54
Chapter 7
Plaint
Introductory
7.1. Detailed provisions as to the particulars to be contained in the plaint are dealt with in the first eight rules of Order 7. Where a plaint is presented, it may either be admitted (rule 9), returned, if the court has no jurisdiction (rule 10), or rejected for certain grounds (rules 11 to 13). Each of these three possible alternatives is of importance.
7.2. Since, usually, the plaintiff sues or relies upon a document in support of his case, rules 14 to 18 in Order 7 contain detailed provisions as to listing and production of such documents at the time when the plaint is presented.
Order 7, rule 2
7.3. Order 7, rule 2 provides that in a suit for recovery of money, the plaint shall state the precise amount claimed. Under the Punjab Amendment to Order 7, rule 2, where the suit is for movable property in the possession of the defendant or for a debt of which the value cannot be estimated, the plaint shall state approximately the amount or value.
7.4. In the earlier Report1 it was considered unnecessary to adopt such a provision. But, we think, that it would be useful.
1. 27th Report, note on Order 7, rule 2.
Recommendation
7.5. Accordingly, we recommend the following re-draft of Order 7, rule 2:
"2. Where the plaintiff seeks the recovery of money, the plaint shall state the precise amount claimed. But where the plaintiff sues for-
(a) Mesne profits, or
(b) for an amount which will be found due to him on taking unsettled accounts between him and the defendant, or
(c) for movables in the possession of the defendant, or
(d) for debts of which the value he cannot, after the exercise of reasonable diligence, estimate, the plaint shall state approximately the amount or value sued for."
Order 7, rule 6
7.6. Order 7, rule 6, requires that a ground of exemption from limitation should be specifically pleaded in the plaint.
7.7. Where the ground of exemption from limitation is not stated in the plaint, the question arises whether it can be raised later (without amendment of the pleading). The earlier Report discussed the controversy,1 on this point.
1. 27th Report, note on Order 7, rule 6.
7.8. Another question is whether, when the ground of exemption from limitation is stated, the plaintiff can take another ground, which is new but is consistent with the allegations in the pleading. The controversy on this point was also discussed in the earlier Report.1
1. 27th Report, note on Order 7, rule 6.
7.9. A third question is, whether a new and inconsistent ground can be pleaded? It was noted in the earlier Report1 that a clerical error in a Bombay Judgment had misled some courts into thinking that even an inconsistent plea can be taken for claiming exemption from limitation.
2. 27th Report, note on Order 7, rule 6.
7.10. To summarise the position, as was stated in that Report,-
(i) the strict provision embodied in Order 7, rule 6 has been administered liberally by most High Courts (excepting the Madras High Court)1;
(ii) there is some confusion about whether the extra grounds which can be set up, should be "consistent", with the earlier ground as set out in the pleadings.
1. The later decision in S.M. Misrimall v. K. Radhakrishnan, AIR 1972 Mad 108 (DB) does not seem to make a difference.
7.11. In view of the majority view, it was stated in the earlier Report, that an amendment was not necessary.