[2025:RJ-JP:50950] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17642/2025 Action Construction Equipment Limited, Having Its Registered Office At Dhudhola Link Road, Village Dhudhola, Palwal- 121102, Haryana Manufacturer Company Hydro Crane Model 14 Xw Crane Ace014Xwln0661405 Chassis No. Ace014Xwln0661405 Engine No. S433-B 34795 Through Its Authorized Signatory Shri Mukesh Kumar Meena S/o Shri Babu Lal Meena. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Ramjilal Son Of Shri Gajanand Bagaria, Aged About 26 Years, Residing At Kali Hardia Moralla, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk, Rajasthan. 2. Gajanand Son Of Shri Panchoo Bagaria, Aged About 48 Years, Residing At Kali Hardia Moralla, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk, Rajasthan. 3. Smt. Sita Devi Wife Of Gajanand, Residing At Kali Hardia Moralla, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk, Rajasthan- (Deceased) 4. Roop Narayan Khati S/o Shri Rameshwar Khati, R/o Jhadli, Police Station Lambaharisingh, District Tonk (Rajasthan), Driver Of Hydro Crane Model 14 Xw Crane Ace014Xwln0661405 Chassis No. Ace014Xwln0661405 Engine No. S433-B 34795. 5. Siddhanth Construction Company, Through Its Owner Om Prakash Sharma S/o Bherulal Sharma, R/o Jain Mohalla, Near Phool Chabutra, Todaraisingh, District Tonk (Rajasthan), Owner Of Hydro Crane Model 14 Xw Crane Ace014Xwln0661405 Chassis No. Ace014Xwln0661405 Engine No. S433-B 34795. 6. United India Insurance Company Limited, Having Its Branch Office At Nizam Bidi Factory, Subhash Bazar, Tonk (Rajasthan), Insured Vehicle Hydro Crane Model 14 Xw Crane Ace014Xwln0661405 Chassis No. Ace014Xwln0661405 Engine No. S433-B 34795 Insurance Policy No. 1421013122 P 102392453- Insurance Period- 15.06.2022 To 14.06.2023. 7. Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Company, Having Its Branch Office At Hotel Arihant, Jaipur Road, Chawni Tonk, Rajasthan, Insurance Company Of Hydro Crane Model 14 Xw Crane Ace014Xwln0661405 Chassis No. Ace014Xwln0661405 Engine No. S433-B 34795 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shobit Tiwari with Mr. Prakash Sharma [2025:RJ-JP:50950] (2 of 6) [CW-17642/2025] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA Order 17/12/2025 1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 13.10.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Tribunal’), whereby the application filed by the petitioner – Company under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘CPC’) has been dismissed. 2. This writ petition arises from a claim petition filed by the respondents / claimants Nos.1 to 3 before the learned Tribunal for the grant of compensation on account of death of Smt. Badam Devi in a road accident with Hydro Crane on 15.06.2022. During the pendency of the said claim petition, the respondent Nos.4 & 5 filed an application for the impleadment of the petitioner – Company as a party to the claim petition. The said application was allowed by the learned Tribunal and impleaded the petitioner – Company as a necessary and proper party to the claim petition for complete and effective adjudication of the claim vide order dated 16.08.2024. 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 16.08.2024, the petitioner – Company filed a writ petition bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1896/2025 (Action Constution Equipment Limited v. Ramji Lal & Ors.), which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 12.02.2025 and affirmed the order dated 16.08.2024 passed by the learned Tribunal. While affirming the said order of impleadment, this Court observed that the petitioner would get full opportunity to put its defence in the claim petition [2025:RJ-JP:50950] (3 of 6) [CW-17642/2025] before the learned Tribunal, and to establish its case for absolvement from any liability to pay the compensation to the claimants. 4. The petitioner – Company, thereafter, filed reply to the claim petition before the learned Tribunal, denying its liability to pay the compensation to the respondents / claimants. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner – Company filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC for the rejection of the claim petition qua the petitioner - Company only, on the ground that the claim petition does not disclose any cause of action against the petitioner – Company. The said application has been dismissed by the learned Tribunal vide impugned order dated 13.10.2025. 5. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner - Company that the claim petition discloses no cause of action against the petitioner – Company, therefore, the claim petition deserves to be rejected qua the petitioner only. However, the learned Tribunal erroneously dismissed the petitioner’s application vide impugned order without assigning any reason. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material made available on record. 7. This Court observes that initially the petitioner – Company was not a party to the claim petition, however, while allowing the application filed by the respondent Nos.4 & 5, the petitioner – Company was impleaded as party to the said petition. The order of impleadment passed by the learned Tribunal has been affirmed by this Court. No further challenge has been made to the said order, therefore, the issue that the petitioner – Company is a necessary [2025:RJ-JP:50950] (4 of 6) [CW-17642/2025] and proper party to the claim petition for the proper adjudication of the claim petition has attained finality. 8. It is further observed that the petitioner – Company filed an application for rejection of the plaint qua itself only. However, it is a settled principle of law that a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC has to be rejected either as a whole or not at all. A plaint cannot be rejected in a piecemeal manner or qua one of the defendants. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhav Prasad Aggarwal & Anr. v. Axis Bank Ltd. & Anr. [(2019) 7 SCC 158 : 2019 INSC 707] has held that a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC cannot be rejected in part, only against one of the defendants. Relevant portion of Madhav Prasad Aggarwal’s case (supra) reads as under:- “11. We do not deem it necessary to elaborate on all other arguments as we are inclined to accept the objection of the appellant(s) 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. Indeed, the learned Single Judge rejected this objection raised by the appellant(s) by relying on the decision of the Division Bench of the same High Court. However, we find that the decision of this Court in the case of Sejal Glass Limited (supra) is directly on the point. In that case, an application was filed by the defendant(s) under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC stating that the plaint disclosed no cause of action. The civil court held that the plaint is to be bifurcated as it did not disclose any cause of action against the director’s defendant(s) 2 to 4 therein. On that basis, the High Court had opined that the suit can continue against defendant No.1- company alone. The question considered by this Court was whether such a course is open to the civil court in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC. The Court answered the said question in the negative by adverting to several decisions on the point [2025:RJ-JP:50950] (5 of 6) [CW-17642/2025] which had consistently held that the 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. In no uncertain terms the Court has held that 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. 12. In view of this settled legal position we may now turn to the nature of reliefs claimed by respondent No.1 in the notice of motion considered by the Single Judge in the first instance and then the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay. The principal or singular substantive relief is to reject the plaint only qua the applicant/respondent No.1 herein. No more and no less. 13. Indubitably, the plaint can and must be rejected in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC on account of non- compliance of mandatory requirements or being replete with any institutional deficiency at the time of presentation of the plaint, ascribable to clauses (a) to (f) of Rule 11 of Order 7 of CPC. In other words, the plaint as presented must proceed as a whole or can be rejected as a whole but not in part. In that sense, the relief claimed by respondent No.1 in the notice of motion(s) which commended to the High Court, 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. That can be considered by the Court on its own merits and in accordance with law. Although, the High Court has examined those matters in the impugned judgment the same, in our opinion, should stand effaced and we order accordingly. 14. Resultantly, we do not wish to dilate on the argument of the appellant(s) about the inapplicability of the judgments taken into account by the Division Bench of the High Court or for that matter the correctness of the dictum in the concerned judgment on the principle underlying the exposition in Nahar Industrial Enterprises Limited Vs. Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation7 to the effect that the DRT and also the appellate authority cannot pass a decree nor it is open to it to enter upon determination in respect of matters beyond the scope of power or jurisdiction endowed in terms of Section 17 of the 2002 Act. We leave all questions open to be decided afresh on its own merits in accordance with law. [2025:RJ-JP:50950] (6 of 6) [CW-17642/2025] 15. A fortiori, these appeals must succeed on the sole ground that the principal relief claimed in the notice of motion filed by respondent No.1 to reject the plaint only qua the said respondent and which commended to the High Court, is replete with jurisdictional error. Such a relief “cannot be entertained” in exercise of power under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC. That power is limited to rejection of the plaint as a whole or not at all.“ 9. The case of Madhav Prasad Aggarwal (supra) has been subsequently followed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bank of India & Ors. v. Prabha Jain & Ors. [(2025) 4 SCC 38 : 2025 INSC 95]. 10. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner – Company sought rejection of the claim petition qua itself only, which, in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in these aforesaid cases, is not permissible as the plaint cannot be rejected qua one of the defendants as per the provisions contained under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. 11. In view of the above discussion, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition and consequently, the same is hereby dismissed. 12. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J Sahil Soni /43