The Supreme Court of India recently intervened in a case originating from the Kerala High Court, overturning its decision. The case revolved around the rejection of a plaint, with the Supreme Court quashing the High Court's order and emphasizing the duty of the higher judiciary to decide matters on their merits.

A bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan presided over the proceedings. The bench underscored that it was the obligation of the High Court to delve into the merits of a case rather than opting for a remand to the trial court without due consideration.

The crux of the matter lay in the High Court's decision to remand an application for rejection of the plaint back to the trial court, without offering a substantive judgment on the application itself. The Supreme Court took issue with this approach, noting that the High Court had failed to provide a specific rationale for its decision to allow the application for rejection of the plaint. Moreover, the Court criticized the lack of justification for remanding the case to the trial court, deeming it an unwarranted action.

Senior Advocate V Chitambaresh represented the petitioner in the case, while AOR Renuka Sahu appeared for the respondent. The bench's ruling not only overturned the High Court's decision but also directed the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court of Kerala to ensure that the petitions were placed before the roster Bench for further proceedings on February 26, 2024.

The crux of the dispute stemmed from the respondent's application for the rejection of the plaint under Rule 11 of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, citing issues of limitation. However, the trial court had rejected this application, prompting the respondent to seek recourse through a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court.

In its impugned order, the High Court had opined that the trial court should have allowed the application for rejection of the plaint on the grounds of limitation without delving into further inquiries. However, rather than adjudicating on the merits of the application, the High Court opted for a remand to the trial court, a decision that the Supreme Court found untenable.

In partially allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court kept all contentions open to be decided by the High Court, underscoring the need for judicial bodies to thoroughly consider the merits of each case before rendering a decision.

Case: M.P. Shyam v. Suja Thomas,

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1320-1321 OF 2024
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) Nos.18682-18683 of 2023)

Click to read/download order.