M.R. Shah JUDGMENT
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.
1. These appeals arise from a judgment of a Single Judge at the Nagpur Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.
2. The Appellant is the Plaintiff in a suit instituted before the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Nagpur. The first Respondent filed an application at Exhibit-50 for the rejection of the plaint on the ground that it was barred under Clauses (b) and (d) of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 ("CPC"). The Fifth Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur allowed the application. However, while doing so, the Appellant was "directed to seek proper relief and pay court fee thereon within 15 days, otherwise appropriate order will be passed". This order of the Trial Judge, insofar as it permitted the Appellant to carry out an amendment for seeking appropriate reliefs was assailed before the High Court in a Civil Revision Application No. 124 of 2017 by Defendants 1A to D and Defendant No. 2 (Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to these proceedings). The Appellant instituted a Writ Petition1 Under Article 227 of the Constitution for challenging the order of the Trial Judge allowing the application Under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court decided both the civil revision application and the writ petition by a common judgment. The Single Judge held that since the plaint was rejected Under Order 7 Rule 11(d) there was no occasion to direct that an amendment be made to the plaint. The civil revision was allowed on this basis. The writ petition filed by the Appellant was held to be an "after thought and belated" and no relief was granted to the Appellant in the writ proceedings. That is how the proceedings have reached this Court. The Appellant is essentially aggrieved by the decision of the Trial Court and the High Court to allow the application Under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
3. Since the controversies in the present case arise out of the application Under Order 7 Rule 11, it would be necessary to set out in brief the contents of the plaint. Parties would be referred to on the basis of their respective positions in the suit. The Plaintiff claims that he came into contact with the third Defendant who is a financial broker. The third Defendant is alleged to have arranged a loan of Rs. 7 lacs with interest at 5 per cent month subject on the Plaintiff executing an agreement and blank documents as security for the loan. Against the loan of Rs. 7 lacs, the Plaintiff is alleged to have executed an agreement dated 3 April 2012 in favour of the nominees of the third Defendant and executed documents which were blank. Thereafter, it is alleged that the Plaintiff needed an additional finance of Rs. 22 lacs and the third Defendant took the Plaintiff to the first Defendant. The first Defendant is alleged to have agreed to give a loan of Rs. 22 lacs on the condition that the Plaintiff executed a sale deed in respect of land of Mauza: Kanholi towards security for repayment of the loan. The amount was paid over on 11 May 2012 and was to carry interest of 5 per cent per ........