Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

According to the model answer circulated by the High Court, Option 1 is the correct answer, whereas according to the petitioners Option 3 is the correct answer.

8- Shri Amitabh Gupta and Shri P. Chourasiya, learned counsel for the petitioners, invited our attention to the definition of „decree‟ as contained in Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as „the Code‟), and argued that an order rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule of the Code is a „deemed decree‟ as per the provisions of section 2(2) and, therefore, the option given by the petitioners to this question i.e... Option No.3 is also the correct option. Learned counsel invites our attention to certain opinion given in the Book on „Civil Procedure with Limitation Act, 1963‟, 7 th Edition, Published by Eastern Book Company, authored by a Former Judge of the Supreme Court, Hon‟ble Shri Justice C.K. Thakker, as contained in Chapter II with regard to commentary on what is a „deemed decree‟ and Writ Petition Nos:: 1281/2016 & 1224/2016.

argued that an order passed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is a „deemed decree‟ as per the opinion of the Author and, therefore, the option given by the petitioners were correct. Learned counsel argues that by virtue of a legal fiction created in the matter, the correct answer is „deemed decree‟ and the petitioners are entitled to one mark for this question. In support of his contention, learned counsel further invited our attention to the concept of Legal Fiction as discussed and indicated by Justice G.P. Singh, in his Book on „Principles of Statutory Interpretation‟ and argues that an order passed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is a „deemed decree‟ and, therefore, the answer given by the petitioners are correct. 9- Shri Amitabh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners, further places reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Amal Chandra Mondal Vs. Anita Biswas, 2006 (2) CLJ 180, and certain observations made in paragraph 21 thereto, to say that an order passed under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code, rejecting a plaint is a „deemed decree‟ as observed by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment.

counsel also invites our attention to the definition of „disfiguration‟ and tried to indicate that it is a case where only a scar is found of the face, this amounts to a „simple injury‟ and, therefore, the respondents have committed an error in deducting two marks from all the petitioners. Learned counsel took us through various aspects of the matter in detail, as indicated hereinabove, in support of his contention. 11- Shri Khalid Noor Fakhruddin, learned counsel for the respondents, refuted each and every contention and argued that the question posed to the candidate was as to what is the nature of an order passed rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. If the definition of the word „decree‟ as indicated in Section 2(2) of the Code, is taken note of, it is crystal clear that „decree‟ would also cover an order passed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Learned counsel argued that in the entire Scheme of the CPC, there is nothing like a „deemed decree‟. A „deemed decree‟ is not at all defined in the Code of Civil Procedure. What is provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure is a „decree‟, a „judgment‟, and, an „order‟. There is nothing like a „deemed decree‟ in the Code and the question asked by the examiner is to test the legal acumen of a person. The correct answer, therefore, is that an order passed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code is a „decree‟ and there being nothing like a „deemed decree‟ in the Code, Shri Fakhruddin argues that the contention of the petitioners is not correct.

backdrop of his legal knowledge based on the definition, an option which is not the correct one with specific reference to the definition cannot be treated as the correct one. Learned counsel emphasized that in this case the options given were deliberately incorporated by the Expert Examiner‟s to somehow create confusion in the matter for the purpose of testing the legal aptitude and acumen of the candidate. 17- We have considered the rival contentions and we find that Question No.15 as indicated hereinabove was as to what is the nature of an order passed rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. The option given is that it is a „decree‟. A „decree‟ is defined in section 2(2) of the Code and merely because certain orders passed by legal fiction as contended by Shri Amitabh Gupta may be „deemed to be a decree‟, this cannot be the correct answer as under the statutory provisions and the definition of „decree‟ as is detailed in the Code of Civil Procedure, there is nothing like a „deemed decree‟. The Code of Civil Procedure only contemplates a „decree‟ as defined under section 2(2) and when a plaint is rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, the order is in the nature of a „decree‟. Even if by legal fiction the order can be „deemed to be a decree‟, but the correct answer which is based on the definition of „decree‟ would be that it is a „decree‟ and the contention of the petitioners that the option given by them is also correct cannot be accepted, because the definition of „decree‟ under section 2(2) only by creating a legal fiction includes certain orders to be „decree‟, but there being no specific term like a „deemed decree‟ defined under the Code of Civil Procedure, the only correct answer would be that it is a „decree‟ and the High Court in prescribing the answer in the manner as done has not committed any error. The judgments relied upon by Shri Fakhruddin also indicates that an order rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code is a „decree‟ within the meaning of Section 2(2). Petitioners‟ contention that by legal fiction the answer is „deemed decree‟ cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the specific question asked for was as to whether such an order is a „decree‟. Once it is found to be „decree‟ fulfilling the requirement of section 2(2), the correct answer could only Writ Petition Nos:: 1281/2016 & 1224/2016.