1 Delay condoned.
2 Leave granted.
3 Appellants are aggrieved since the application
filed under Order 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
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 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 Dhulabhai and Others Vs. The State of
Madhya Pradesh and Anr. reported in (1968) 3 SCR 662.
7. According to the appellants, the respondents have
suppressed 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 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 the entire documents including those
furnished by the defendant.
8. In view of the above observations, the appeal is
dismissed.
9. However, 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. JUDGMENT
No costs.