Plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 can only be rejected as a whole or not at all

The Supreme Court in the matter of Madhav Prasad Aggarwal and  Anr. vs.Axis
Bank Ltd. & Anr., arising out of SLP (C) No.31579 of 2018 decided on 01.07.2019
has held that relief of rejection of plaint in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule
11(d) of CPC cannot be pursued only in respect of one of the defendant(s). In other
words, the plaint has to be rejected as a whole or not at all, in exercise of power
Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC. The Apex Court held that rejection of plaint in part
would defeat the purpose of Order 7 Rule 11, the suit as a whole must then proceed
to trial.
The above ratio was delivered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Madhav
Prasad Aggarwal ;Anr. Vs.Axis Bank Ltd. & Anr., arising out of SLP (C)
No.31579 of 2018 decided on 01.07.2019.

Challenge
A suit was filed by the Appellant/ original plaintiffs against Respondent no. 1 Axis
Bank and certain other defendants. A notice of motion was filed by Respondent
No. 1 in the said suit wherein the relief claimed was that the plaint be rejected qua
Respondent No.1 herein in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC on
the ground that the suit(s) against the said respondent would be barred by
provisions of Section 34 of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
The said notice of motion filed by respondent No.1¬ came to be allowed and as a
result of which, the suit filed by the concerned appellant(s) was dismissed
as against respondent No.1 by invoking the provisions of Order 7 Rule
11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code.

Held
The Supreme Court relied on the judgment of Sejal Glass Limited Vs. Navilan
Merchants Private Limited (2018) 11 SCC 780 and reiterated that the relief of
rejection of plaint in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC cannot
be pursued only in respect of one of the defendant(s). In other words, the plaint has
to be rejected as a whole or not at all, in exercise of power Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of
CPC.
In the judgement of Sejal Glass Limited the Supreme court had categorically held
that that a plaint can either be rejected as a whole or not at all. The Court held that
it is not permissible to reject plaint qua any particular portion of a plaint including
against some of the defendant(s) and continue the same against the others. if the
plaint survives against certain defendant(s) and/or properties, Order 7 Rule 11(d)
of CPC will have no application at all, and the suit as a whole must then proceed to
trial.
Applying the above principles to the facts of the case, the Court held that the relief
claimed by respondent No.1 in the notice of motion is clearly a
jurisdictional error. The fact that one or some of the reliefs claimed against
respondent No.1 in the concerned suit is barred by Section 34 of 2002 Act or
otherwise, such objection can be raised by invoking other remedies including
under Order 6 Rule 16 of CPC at the appropriate stage.