THE CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, NEW DELHI AND ORS.versusLALA J.R. EDUCATION SOCIETY AND ORS.

                               [2016] 5 S.C.R. 406



A        THE CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER,
                    NEW DELHI AND ORS.
                                       v.
              LALA J.R. EDUCATION SOCIETY AND ORS.

B                       (Civil Appeal No. 9840of2016)
                            SEPTEMBER 26, 2016
             [KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.)
           Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - 0. VII, r.11 - Rejection of
    Plaint - Dismissal of suit - Civil suit filed by respondents -
c Application     of appellant u/O. VIL r.11 rejected - Appellant seeking
    dismissal of sui-t at the threshold, stating crucial facts were
    suppressed in plaint - Held: On an application filed u/
    0. V/Lr.11,C.P.C, the Civil court can only see the pleadings in the
    plaint and not anything else including written statement - Rejection
D of plaint on institutional grounds is different from dismissal of a
  . suit at pre-trial stage on the ground of maintainability- For dismissal
    on a preliminary issue, the Court is entitled and liable to look into
    entire documents including those furnished by the defendant -
    Appeal dismissed, however appellant permitted to raise a preliminary
    issue on the maintainability of the suit before the trial court.
E
            Dhulabhai and Others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
            and Anr. (1968) 3 SCR 662 - referred to.
                            Case Law Reference
           (1968) 3 SCR 662          referred to            Para6
F
          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9840
     of2016.
           From the Judgment and Order dated 02.02.2016 of the High Court
     of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in C.R. No. 1922of2013 (0 & M).
G          Jojo Jose, Shishir Pinaki, Raj iv Kumar Sinha, Rameshwar Prasad
     Goyal, Ad vs. for the Appellants.
           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
           KURIAN, J. 1. Delay condoned.
H          2. Leave granted.
                                       406
   CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMNR., NEW DELHI v.                                        407
      LALA J. R. EDUCATION SOCIETY [KURIAN, J.]

      3. Appellants are aggrieved since the application filed under Order              A
VII, Rule 11, CPC has been rejected.
        4. According to the appellants, the respondents having exhausted
all the remedies under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952, cannot thereafter approach the Civil Court, which
is barred under Section 7L(4) of the Employees Provident Funds and                      B
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
       5. On an application filed under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC, the
Civil Court can only see the pleadings in the plaint and not anything else
including written statement.
       6.The main grievance urged in .the plaint is that the procedure                  c
under the Act has not been followed and, therefore, the appellants are
entitled to file a suit. If that be so, the plaintiff is entitled to file a suit, as
held by this Court in the case of Dllulabliai tmd Others Vs. Tile State
of Madhya Prtuleslt <tnd Anr. reported in (1968) 3 SCR 662.
       7. According to the appellants, the respondents have suppressed                  D
crucial facts in the plaint, which if seen, the suit is only to be dismissed at
the threshold. Rejection of a plaint on institutional grounds is different
from dismissal ofa suit at pre-trial stage on the ground of maintainability.
For dismissal on a preliminary issue, the Court is entitled and liable to
look into the entire documents including those furnished by the defendant.              E
       8. In view of the above observations, the appeal is dismissed.
       9. Howev~r, we permit the appellants to raise a preliminary issue
on the maintainability of the suit, in which case, before proceeding with
the trial, the trial court shall deal with the same in accordance with law.
                                                                                        F
       No costs.
Ankit Gyan                                                        Appeal dismissed.