O.7 R.11, O.1 R.10 — Registration of plaint — Scope of scrutiny at pre-registration stage. At the stage of registration of a plaint, the trial Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the merits of the claim or the maintainability of the suit on disputed questions of law and fact. Issues relating to liability of parties and applicability of statutory bars must be decided only after registration, framing of issues and trial. (Paras 8, 10, 11)

advocatemmmohan

AP HIGH COURT AMARAVATHI

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — O.7 R.11, O.1 R.10 — Registration of plaint — Scope of scrutiny at pre-registration stage.
At the stage of registration of a plaint, the trial Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the merits of the claim or the maintainability of the suit on disputed questions of law and fact. Issues relating to liability of parties and applicability of statutory bars must be decided only after registration, framing of issues and trial.
(Paras 8, 10, 11)

Constitution of India — Art. 227 — Supervisory jurisdiction — Refusal to register plaint.
Where the trial Court refuses to register a plaint by entering into the merits of the claim and adjudicating legal issues prematurely, such refusal amounts to jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(Paras 11, 13)

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — S. 6(4) (as amended by Act 39 of 2005) — Pious obligation — Scope.
Section 6(4) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 does not bar the institution of a suit. It only mandates that a Court shall not recognize the right of a creditor to proceed against a son, grandson or great-grandson (including daughters) solely on the ground of pious obligation, subject to determination during trial.
(Paras 3, 8)

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — S. 6(4) — Applicability — Stage of consideration.
The question whether liability is sought to be fastened on coparceners on the basis of pious obligation, and whether Section 6(4) applies, are matters for adjudication during trial after registration of the suit, and not at the stage of scrutiny of the plaint.
(Paras 5, 8)

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — O.1 R.10 — Power of Court to strike out parties.
Even where doubts exist regarding the liability of certain defendants, the trial Court retains power under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to direct deletion of parties at an appropriate stage; such doubts do not justify refusal to register the suit.
(Para 10)

Money suit — Promissory note — Maintainability.
A suit based on a promissory note executed by the first defendant is certainly maintainable against the executant, irrespective of the ultimate determination of liability of other defendants.
(Para 9)

Trial Court — Jurisdiction — Excess exercise at threshold.
By questioning the liability of defendant Nos.2 and 3 and applying Section 6(4) of the Hindu Succession Act at the stage of registration, the trial Court travelled beyond its jurisdiction.
(Para 11)

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW

The petitioner instituted a money recovery suit based on a promissory note allegedly executed by defendant No.1, asserting that he borrowed the amount as kartha of a joint family, thereby making his minor daughters (defendant Nos.2 and 3) also liable.

The trial Court, at the pre-registration stage, returned the plaint by invoking Section 6(4) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, holding that post-2005 amendment, no creditor can proceed against children on the basis of pious obligation.

The High Court held that:

• Section 6(4) does not create a bar to institution of a suit.

• At best, upon satisfaction of statutory conditions, the Court may refuse to recognize liability at the stage of adjudication.

• Whether liability of defendant Nos.2 and 3 arises, whether pious obligation applies, and whether such obligation can arise during the lifetime of the father, are mixed questions of law and fact.

• Such questions can only be examined after registration of the plaint, framing of issues and trial.

• The trial Court committed a jurisdictional error by deciding these issues prematurely.

• The existence of power under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC further shows that doubts regarding party liability cannot justify refusal to register a suit.

Accordingly, the refusal to register the plaint was held to be illegal and unsustainable.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

Section 6(4) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 does not bar the filing or registration of a suit; the applicability of pious obligation and liability of coparceners are matters for trial, and a civil court has no jurisdiction to refuse registration of a plaint by adjudicating such issues at the threshold.