This article is written by Suryansh Verma, from Dr Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow and Pragya Nagpal, including Nishka Kamath, a graduate of Nalanda Law College, University of Mumbai. In this article, they discuss Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The article envisages the grounds for the rejection of plaint, landmark cases and the sample draft application for the rejection of the plaint.
It has been published by Rachit Garg.
Table of Contents
Background
The plaint is filed for the institution of the suit in the Civil/Commercial Courts. A court dealing with civil matters will be governed by the provisions of the Code. Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure is envisaged with the provisions of the rejection of the plaint by the Court. The article shall discuss the provisions, the grounds of rejection, the limitation period after rejection within which the plaint needs to be re-filed and also other informative things. This rule is merely a procedural rule which ensures nothing but the proper application of the Court Fees Act 1870.
What is Order 7 Rule 11
The Civil Procedure Code, of 1908, has provisions relating to all types of litigation that are of a civil nature. When a civil suit is being filed in court, the court, under this Code, has an obligation to determine whether such a suit is maintainable or not. The court may do one of these three things after determining maintainability:
- Accept the plaint,
- Reject the plaint,
- Return the plaint to the plaintiff or the party filing the suit.
Thus, for the court to fulfil its duty, we have Order 7 Rule 11, which sets the grounds (discussed below) on which a plaint should be rejected. Before discussing the ground rules, it is pertinent to take into account that the filing of a plaint for instituting a suit is sine qua non, and that every court has an obligation to verify the plaint and determine its admissibility.
Difference between rejection of plaint and return of plaint
Before we proceed further on the ground rules for rejecting a plaint, it is pertinent to understand the difference between the rejection of a plaint and the return of a plaint.
Under Order 7 Rule 10, if the court finds that it does not have the jurisdiction to try the matter, at any stage of the suit, the suit shall be returned or presented to the court in which it should have been instituted. In other words, if the court, at any stage of the trial, finds out that a plaint should be instituted in some other court, the court will return the plaint to the proper court, which holds the rightful authority.
Whereas, under Order 7 Rule 11, there are several grounds upon which a plaint can be rejected by the court.
The object of Order 7 Rule 11
The main object of Order 7 Rule 11 is to reject plaints that are of a frivolous, vexatious, and improper nature at the very beginning, thus saving judicial time and resources. An observation was made in the case of Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi (1986) that the main motive of Order 7 Rule 11 is to ascertain that litigation that barely has any meaning or is bound to prove ‘abortive’ is not permitted to occupy the time of the courts and exercise the minds of the defendants. Such remedies are necessary for putting an end to sham litigations to save judicial time further, as held in the case of Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyani Bhanusali (2020), which is discussed in the forthcoming passages.
Nature of Order 7 Rule 11: non-exhaustive
The Supreme Court, in the case of K. Akbar Ali v. Umar Khan (2021), made an observation that the provisions stated in Order 7 Rule 11 as ground rules for rejecting a plaint are not exhaustive in nature. Further, the court has an inherent power to reject a plaint in a case where it is of a frivolous or vexatious nature. In addition, it also stated that such litigation does not grant the plaintiffs the right to consume the time of the court.
Nature of power of remedy under Order 7 Rule 11
The remedy enshrined under Order 7 Rule 11 is an independent and special remedy which enables the court to summarily reject a suit at the very beginning, without proceeding to record the evidence or conduct a trial, if it is against the set grounds.
The power is similar to that of high courts under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which enables the court to quash the criminal proceedings, as held in the case of Ferdous Finance (P) Ltd. v. R. Thyagarajan, Chennai & Others (2005). In another case [Kamala & Ors v. K.T. Eshwara Sa & Ors (2008)], it was held that Order 7 Rule 11 has limited application.
Rejection of Plaint
Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure elaborates on the rejection of plaints in certain circumstances. It has mentioned certain grounds on the basis of which the plaints are rejected by the courts. One of them is not mentioning the cause of action that the plaintiff seeks against the respondent.
It is necessary to decide the application of rejection of the plaint under Order VII. The defendant cannot be asked to file a written statement without deciding on such an application if there is any. Furthermore, this rule can be applied at any stage of the proceedings. In a case before the Calcutta High Court, Selina Sheehan v. Hafez Mohammad Fateh Nashib, the plaint was rejected even after it was numbered and instituted as a suit.
It is the duty of the Court to examine the plaint thoroughly and decide whether the plaint should be admitted or sent back for making amends to it. However, the plaint is bound to be rejected by the Court in the following circumstances.
Grounds of rejection of the plaint
The cause of action is not mentioned [Order VII Rule 11(a)]
What is the cause of action
Even though the term ‘cause of action’ has been cited in several instances under the CPC, it has no proper definition under the Code. Collins Dictionary defines it as ‘the facts alleged in a complaint, upon which is based the plaintiff’s right to a legal remedy in a court of law’. In other words, the cause of action can be said to be those facts that entitle a person to seek legal remedy against a wrongdoer. An individual is entitled to have certain legal rights and liabilities under relevant provisions, which, if infringed by another individual, will lead to a legal remedy being arisen. Thus, the moment an individual infringes any right, the cause of action arises, and the injured party can seek remedy for the same from a court of law. This is where Rule 11 (a) comes into play.
A cause of action has been mentioned under a lot of provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure. It is a set of allegations or facts that make up the basis for filing a civil suit in court. One instance of the mention of a cause of action is under Order II Rule 2 of the Code. Therein, it has been stated that for the purpose of instituting a suit, the cause of action needs to be explicitly mentioned in the plaint. If it has not been mentioned, then the plaint will be rejected by the court.
It is the sole reason a civil suit exists in the first place. It specifies the legal injury that the person who is instituting a suit has suffered. It also has the remedy or relief that the plaintiff is going to ask the court to grant. The person instituting such a suit also needs to prove certain elements, i.e., as follows:
- That there existed a duty to adhere to,
- The occurrence of a breach of that duty,
- The cause of such a breach, and
- The damages incurred by the plaintiff.
Thus, if the plaint does not allege the facts which are required for furthering the claim of the plaintiff, the plaint shall be dismissed by the court citing the grounds for such dismissal.
Cause of action as a ground for rejection
A plaint can be rejected by the court if it does not mention a cause of action which is to be taken by the plaintiff against the respondent. It is perceived as an abuse of the process of the court. The cause of action has been mentioned in various places in the Code of Civil Procedure. Without a cause of action, a civil suit cannot arise. The cause of action is necessary because it discloses the facts that led the plaintiff to take such action. When the plaint is rejected, the court needs to just look at the plaint and nothing else.
Moreover, a part of the plaint cannot be rejected; the plaint, plaint if it is rejected, has to be rejected as a whole. However, there can be partial striking out of pleadings under Order VI Rule 16 of the Code, but not partial rejection of the plaint.
In Samar Singh v. Kedar Nath Alias K.N. Singh & Ors. (1987), an appeal was filed under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, against the judgement of the Allahabad High Court. The respondent, i.e., Kedar Nath, won the Lok Sabha Elections from Hapur. The appellant was able to secure only 617 votes in the election. The election petition was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11of the Code of Civil Procedure because it did not disclose any cause of action.
In K. Thakshinamoorthy v. State Bank of India (2001), a revision petition was filed against the order of the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai. The Additional Judge had rejected the plaint on the grounds that there was no cause of action mentioned. The defendants sought to get the plaint rejected in that case. Ultimately, the plaint was rejected on the grounds of the absence of a cause of action.
In S.M.P. Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. v. World Tanker Carrier Corporation (2000), the plaint was rejected on the same grounds that there was no cause of action mentioned in the plaint submitted by the plaintiff.
The term ‘cause of action’ was also defined in the case of Bloom Dekor Ltd. v. Subhash Himatlal Desai & Ors (1994) to mean “every fact which, if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the Court”.
In yet another case- Om Prakash Srivastava v. Union of India and Anr. (2006), the Supreme Court held that the expression ‘cause of action’ has a judicially settled meaning and it, in the “restricted sense”, means “the circumstances forming the infraction of the right or the immediate occasion for the reaction”. Whereas, in the “wider sense”, it means “the necessary conditions for the maintenance of the suit, including not only the infraction of the right, but also the infraction coupled with the right itself.“
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Church of Christ Charitable Trust v. M/S. Ponniamman Educational Trust (2012) made the observation that the cause of action is essential for the plaintiff to prove in order to succeed in the suit. Thus, a plaint that does not reveal/disclose the cause of action has no scope of succeeding and, thus, must be dismissed. The Supreme Court held the same in the case of Raj Narain (dead) L. Rs. v. Lakshmi Devi (2001), along with another observation that a plaint is liable to be dismissed when it does not disclose a clear right to sue.
Order II Rule 2 of the Code
The term ’cause of action’ has been mentioned in Order II Rule 2, wherein it has been stated that no person shall be troubled more than once for the same cause of action. The principle behind this Rule is that the plaintiff has to include all the claims at once in the suit that he is instituting. The test for the courts is that the cases falling under this particular provision of the Code must answer the question of whether the claim in the new suit is founded on a different cause of action.
However, the plaintiff is at full liberty to omit any part of the claim.
Illustration – Suresh rents a house from Ramesh at a rent of INR 120000 per year. Rent for the whole of the years 2015, 2016 and 2017 is due and is yet to be paid. Ramesh sues Suresh in 2019 for claiming the amount that was due. The suit was in respect of the rent due in 2015. Thus, after this, Ramesh cannot sue Suresh afterwards for the rent due for the remaining years.
The causes of action need to be different so that the bar under Order II Rule 2 is not applicable. In Alka Gupta v. Narender Kumar Gupta (2010), the parties in the case were partners in a partnership firm. The partnership firm used to run an institute. One of the partners sold her undivided share to the other partner, where the institute was located. In order to claim the amount of the sale, a suit was filed in 2004.
After a decree was passed in the first suit, another suit was filed for the production of accounts of the firm from 2000 to 2004 on certain grounds. The partnership had already dissolved in 2004. The trial and the High Court were of the opinion that such a suit is hit by the Order but the Supreme Court was of a different opinion.
The Supreme Court said that “The cause of action in the first suit was not paying the price under the agreement of sale dated 29th June 2004 whereas, in the second suit, the cause of action was non-settlement of accounts of the dissolved partnership. Order II Rule 2 finds applicability only when both the suits are based on the same cause of action.”
In the case of Deva Ram v. Ishwar Chand (1996), the Supreme Court, while explaining the concept of Order 2 Rule 2, stated that in matters where a plaintiff is entitled to claim several reliefs in respect of the same cause of action, he cannot slice up the claim so as to eliminate one part of the claim and sue for the other. Thus, the plaintiff has to seek all the remedies in one single suit as per Order 2 Rule 2 if the cause of action is the same.
In another case- Sidramappa v. Rajashetty and Ors. (1970)], the Supreme Court stated that if the cause of action on the foundation of which the earlier suit was filed does not form the basis of the consequent suit and if the plaintiff could not have claimed the relief in the earlier suit, the succeeding suit will not be barred by Order 2 Rule 2.
Joinder of causes of action
Several causes of action can be unified into one by the plaintiff against the defendant or several defendants jointly (Order II Rule 2 of the Code).
Any plaintiffs who are interested in the same legal remedy and have the same cause of action may join them in the same suit. However, if such a joinder of causes of action embarrasses or delays the trial of the court, it may order separate trials (Order II Rule 6 of the Code).
Order II Rule 4 of the Code lays down the situations in which the causes of action will not be joined unless the Court has allowed doing so. Following are the exceptions to the same –
- Claims for mesne profit or arrears of rent in respect of the property claimed or any part thereof;
- Claims for damages for breach of any contract under which the property or any part thereof is held;
- Claims in which the relief sought is based on the same cause of action.
This rule provides for the joinder of claims in suits.
A reference to Section 20 of the Code is necessary while discussing case law in relation to causes of action. It states that suits have to be instituted at the place where the cause of action arises, either in part or wholly. Even though the cause of action is a set of facts alleged, it does not contain all the evidence required to prove the allegations.
Notices under Section 80 of the Code are not included in the cause of action. The production of notice to the government or public officer is one of the preliminary steps to filing a suit against them.
Misjoinder of a cause of action
When multiple causes of action are being unified together in a suit which cannot be joined together, there can be no such joinder. All objections concerning the misjoinder of causes of action need to be addressed as early as possible. It is presumed that if an objection is not raised against the misjoinder, this right is deemed to be waived off.
In the case of Prem Lala Nahata & Anr v. Chandi Prasad Sikaria (2007), the plaint could not be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC as it could not be held that a suit which suffers from the flaw either of misjoinder of parties or misjoinder of causes of action or both, is barred by any law.
Furthermore, in the case of P. Govindasamy v. Manickam (2015), the Court held that Non-joinder of necessary parties would not come under the purview of being barred by law as per Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC.
In Subodh Kumar Gupta v. Shrikant Gupta (1993), there was a partnership firm which had its registered office in Bombay and the factory was in Mandsaur. Out of the three partners, two had residences in Mandsaur, whereas one was living in Chandigarh. In Bhilai, an agreement was entered into between the three of them for the dissolution of the firm. Rendering of accounts of the firm was also requested because of the alleged misappropriation of the funds of the firm.
A suit was filed by the plaintiff in Chandigarh regarding the same. The Supreme Court in the instant case had held that the courts at Chandigarh had no jurisdiction in the matter. The cause of action would have arisen at Chandigarh either wholly or partly to confer jurisdiction of the case in the matter. The courts at Bhilai had jurisdiction instead because of the agreement.
In HCL Info Systems Limited v. Anil Kumar (2007), HCL had its registered office in New Delhi and used to run business in Cochin through its branch. It ran the business the same way it used to, by way of branches in Madras and Bombay. Thus, it was held that the courts at Cochin would not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case.
In Jabalpur Cable Network Pvt. Ltd. v. E.S.P.N. Software India Pvt. Ltd. (1999), an agreement was entered into between the parties that if any dispute arises, the courts at Delhi will have exclusive jurisdiction. However, the agreement was not signed at Delhi but at some other place, thus, it was held by the Madhya Pradesh High Court that as per Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the party can file a suit at whichever place the cause of action arose either partly or wholly.
The relief claimed in the plaint is undervalued (Order VII Rule 11(b))
As per Order VII Rule 11(b), if the amount of compensation that is being demanded by the plaintiff is lesser than the requisite, the plaint can be rejected. Such a claim needs to be corrected within the time which is prescribed by the Court. Such a rejection amounts to the dismissal of the suit. A fresh plaint may be presented under Order 7 Rule 13 of the Code.
For the purpose of rejecting a plaint on this ground, the evaluation involved should be objective in nature. For example – In Meenakshi Sundaram Chettiar v. Venkatachalam Chettiar (1979), the evaluation was of the rent of the leasehold. This is an objective evaluation.
In Commercial Aviation & Travel Company & Ors. v. Vimal Pannalal (1988), it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that while evaluating the value of the relief claim in the plaint, the Court needed to resort to the materials and evidence present. The respondent-plaintiff in paragraph 33 of the plaint had claimed relief estimating anywhere from 25 lakhs to 30 lakhs. This was also disputed because there was not an accurate estimate. However, the Court held that it was not unreasonable on the part of the respondent-plaintiff to do so. The appeal before the Supreme Court was dismissed, and reasons were cited for the dismissal.
Undervaluation of the plaint would have the effect of circumventing the laws on court fees and also the provisions that are associated with the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court.
Under this provision, the court has the authority to provide extra time to correct such a blunder. Further, even if the plaintiff has not rectified this mistake, the court may grant him extra time in extraordinary conditions.
Relief under the CPC
Relief also has to be specifically stated in the plaint. Rule 7 of Order VII of the CPC requires that a plaint needs to contain the relief that the plaintiff claims. It can be anything, i.e., damages, an injunction, declaration, appointment of a receiver, etc. If a plaintiff, except when allowed by the Court, omits any relief to which he is entitled to sue, he will not be granted such relief afterwards. Sometimes, the court grants relief on a different ground than that stated in the plaint. The relief claimed by the plaintiff or the defendant may be a general relief or an alternative relief.
Relief has been stated in the plaint clearly but the paper on which the plaint is written is not properly stamped [Order VII Rule 11(c)]
To ensure that a plaint is adequately stamped, there are provisions mandated under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Also, to safeguard the interests of the states, Rule 11(c) provides insufficiently stamped plaint to be a ground for rejection. As in the matter of undervaluation of plaint, the court may also provide extra time to the plaintiff to rectify such an error in this provision as well.
Further, as per Order VII Rule 11(c), a plaint is rejected by the court if it has been written on a paper which has not been duly stamped and authorised. If the person is not able to make up for the deficiency, he can apply as a pauper to continue the suit. An Order under this Rule for rejecting a plaint must only be given after the plaintiff has been given reasonable time to amend the situation.
In a case before the Calcutta High Court, Midnapore Zamindary Co. v. Secretary of State (1938), the Court had required the plaintiff to supply the amended plaint with the duly stamped paper which he failed to do so. It was held by the Court that the plaintiff would not be allowed to amend the plaint and was directed to pay an extra amount of court fees. The plaint was also rejected.
If the suit is barred by any statute [Order VII Rule 11(d)]
As per Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code, a plaint shall be rejected if the suit is barred by limitation.
If a suit is barred by the Law of Limitation, the plaint of such a suit can be amended at the hearing. It is the duty of the Court to see whether there is non-disclosure of the cause of action or whether the plaint is barred under any law.
Wherever it can be shown by the plaintiff that the suit was filed within the time period of limitation, the provisions of this order will not be attracted. The computation of the period of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts.
For example – If a suit is brought against the government without giving the requisite notice (which is to be given 2 months prior) to the same under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaint for such a suit shall be rejected. Section 80 of the Code requires a notice to be served to the government or the public officer before the institution of the suit.
This is one of the most common examples of suit filings that are barred by law.
In 2022, the Supreme Court in the case of M/S Frost International Limited v. Milan Developers and Builders (P) Limited and Anr. asserted that the remedy of injuncting the defendant from initiating criminal proceedings against the plaintiff under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, can be dismissed/rejected on the ground that such relief is barred by law as stated under Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
In Bhagchand Dagdusa Gujrathi v. The Secretary of State for India (1927), a suit was brought against the Secretary. This suit was brought without giving prior notice as required by Section 80 of the Code. The plaint was rejected.
Landmark cases
In Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh (2019), the cause of action had arisen when the plaintiff challenged the gift deed after a period of approximately twenty-two years from the date of the execution of the same. The plaintiff in the case has challenged the gift deed with the allegations that the gift deed is a showy and sham one, hence not binding. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, after hearing both sides, in view of the facts of the case, held that this suit is unequivocally prohibited by the Limitation Act, 1963. And, the plaint needs to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11of the Code.
If the plaint is not filed in duplicate [Order 7 Rule 11(e)]
Order VII Rule 11(e) requires that a duplicate copy of the plaint along with the original one should be filed for instituting a suit. The plaint is rejected if the plaintiff fails to do so. The same has been discussed under Order 4 Rule 1 of the CPC. In the absence of the aforementioned procedure, the court has the discretion to reject the plaint.
If the plaint does not comply with Order 7 Rule 9
Rule 9 provides that the plaintiff, on the plaint, has to annex a list of documents (if any), and if the plaint is admitted, the same must be produced within a stipulated time period. The plaintiff has to submit as many copies of the plaint on plain paper as there are defendants, unless the court permits him to do otherwise. Moreover, it also states that the plaintiff has to pay the necessary fees for the service of summons on the defendants within the stipulated time by the court.
Furthermore, Order VII Rule 11(f) states that if a plaintiff does not comply with Order VII Rule 9 of the Code, the plaint can be rejected. Rule 9 Order VII of the Code specifies the procedure after the admission of the plaint. The plaintiff needs to attach a list of documents, and a number of copies as required by the court.
If the plaint doesn’t mention a cause of action (Order VII Rule 11(a))
Order 7 rule 11 Cause of Action
Cause of Action has been mentioned under a lot of provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure. It is a set of allegations or facts which make up for the ground of filing a civil suit in the Court. One instance of the mention of Cause of Action is under Order II Rule 2 of the Code. Therein, it has been stated that for the purpose of instituting a suit, the cause of action needs to be explicitly mentioned in the plaint. If it has not been mentioned, then the plaint will be rejected by the Court.
It is the sole reason why a civil suit exists in the first place. It specifies the legal injury which the person who is instituting a suit has suffered. It also has the remedy or relief which the plaintiff is going to ask the Court to grant. The person instituting such suit also needs to prove certain elements i.e. 1. That there existed a duty, 2. The occurrence of a breach of that duty, 3. The cause of such a breach and 4. The damages incurred by the plaintiff. Thus, if the plaint does not allege the facts which are required for furthering the claim of the plaintiff, the plaint shall be dismissed by the Court citing the grounds for such dismissal.
Order II Rule 2 of the Code
The term Cause of Action has been mentioned in Order II Rule 2 wherein it has been stated that no person shall be troubled more than once for the same cause of action. The principle behind this rule is that the plaintiff has to include all the claims at once in the suit which he is instituting. The test for the Courts is that the cases falling under this particular provision of the Code must answer the question that the claim in the new suit is found upon a different cause of action.
However, the plaintiff is at full liberty to omit any part of the claim.
Illustration – Suresh rents a house from Ramesh at a rent of INR 120000 per year. Rent for the whole of the years 2015, 2016 and 2017 is due and is yet to be paid. Ramesh sues Suresh in 2019 for claiming the amount which was due. The suit was in respect of the rent due in 2015. Thus, after this Ramesh cannot sue Suresh afterwards for the rent due for the remaining years.
The causes of action need to be different so that the bar under Order II Rule 2 is not applicable. In Alka Gupta v. Narendar Kumar Gupta, the parties in the case were partners in a partnership firm. The partnership firm used to run an institute. One of the partners sold her undivided share to the other partner where the institute was located. In order to claim the amount of sale, a suit was filed in 2004.
After a decree was passed in the first suit, another suit was filed for production of accounts of the firm from 2000 to 2004 on certain grounds. The partnership had already dissolved in 2004. The trial and the High Court were of the opinion that such suit is hit by the Order but the Supreme Court was of a different opinion.
The Supreme Court said that “The cause of action in the first suit was not paying the price under the agreement of sale dated 29th June 2004 whereas, in the second suit, the cause of action was non-settlement of accounts of the dissolved partnership. Order II Rule 2 finds applicability only when both the suits are based on the same cause of action.”
Joinder of Causes of Action
Several causes of action can be unified into one by the plaintiff against the defendant or several defendants jointly. (Order II Rule 2 of the Code)
Any plaintiffs who are interested in the same legal remedy and have the same cause of action may unite them into one in the same suit. However, if such joinder of causes of action embarrasses or delays the trial of the court, it may order separate trials. (Order II Rule 6 of the Code)
Order II Rule 4 of the Code lays down the situations in which the causes of action will not be joined unless the Court has allowed doing so. Following are the exceptions to the same –
- Claims for mesne profit or arrears of rent in respect of the property claimed or any part thereof;
- Claims for damages for breach of any contract under which the property or any part thereof is held;
- Claims in which the relief sought is based on the same cause of action.
This rule provides for joinder of claims in suits.
A reference to Section 20 of the Code is necessary while discussing case laws in relation to cause of action.
Section 20 states that suits have to be instituted at the place where the cause of action arises, either in part or wholly. Even though the cause of action is a set of facts alleged but it does not contain all the evidence required for proving the allegations.
Notices under Section 80 of the Code are not included in Cause of Action. The production of notice to the Government or public officer is one of the preliminary steps for filing a suit against them.
Misjoinder of Cause of Action
When multiple causes of action are being unified together in the suit which cannot be joined together, there can be no such joinder. All objections concerning the misjoinder of causes of action need to be addressed as early as possible. It is presumed that if an objection is not raised against the misjoinder, this right is deemed to be waived off.
Case Laws
In Subodh Kumar Gupta v. Shrikant Gupta, there was a partnership firm which had its registered office in Bombay and the factory was in Mandsaur. Out of the three partners, two had their residences in Mandsaur whereas one was living in Chandigarh. In Bhilai, an agreement was entered into between the three of them for dissolution of the firm. Rendering of accounts of the firm was also requested because of the alleged misappropriation of the funds of the firm.
A suit was filed by the plaintiff in Chandigarh regarding the same. The Supreme Court in the instant case had held that the Courts at Chandigarh had no jurisdiction in the matter. The cause of action would have arisen at Chandigarh either wholly or partly to confer jurisdiction of the case in the matter. Courts at Bhilai had the jurisdiction instead because of the agreement.
In HCL Info Systems Limited v. Anil Kumar, HCL had its registered office at New Delhi and used to run business in Cochin through its branch. It ran the business the same way it used to by way of branches in Madras and Bombay. Thus, it was held that the courts at Cochin would not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case.
In Jabalpur Cable Network Pvt. Ltd. v. E.S.P.N. Software India Pvt. Ltd., an agreement was entered into between the parties that if any dispute arises, the courts at Delhi will have exclusive jurisdiction. However, the agreement was not signed at Delhi but at some other place, thus, it was held by the Madhya Pradesh High Court that as per Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the party can file a suit at whichever place the cause of action arose either partly or wholly.
Grounds of rejection of the plaint
A plaint can be rejected by the Court if it does not mention a cause of action which is to be taken by the plaintiff against the respondent. It is perceived as an abuse of the process of the Court. Cause of Action has been mentioned at various places in the Code of Civil Procedure. Without a cause of action, a civil suit cannot arise. The cause of action is necessary because it discloses the facts that made the plaintiff take such action. When the plaint is being rejected, the court needs to just look at the plaint and nothing else.
Moreover, a part of the plaint cannot be rejected, the plaint if rejected, has to be rejected as a whole. However, there can be partial striking out of pleadings under Order VI Rule 16 of the Code, but not partial rejection of the plaint.
In Samar Singh v. Kedar Nath Alias K.N. Singh & Ors., an appeal was filed under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court. The respondent i.e. Kedar Nath won the Lok Sabha Elections from Hapur. The appellant was able to secure only 617 votes in the election. The election petition was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure because it did not disclose any cause of action.
In K. Thakshinamoorthy v. State Bank of India, a revision petition was filed against the order of the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai. The Additional Judge had rejected the plaint on the grounds that there was no cause of action mentioned. The defendants sought to get the plaint rejected in that case. Ultimately, the plaint was rejected on the grounds of absence of a cause of action.
In S.M.P. Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. v. World Tanker Carrier Corporation, the plaint was rejected on the same grounds that there was no cause of action mentioned in the plaint submitted by the plaintiff.
The relief claimed in the plaint is undervalued (Order VII Rule 11(b))
As per Order VII Rule 11(b), if the amount of compensation that is being demanded by the plaintiff is lesser than the requisite, the plaint can be rejected. Such a claim needs to be corrected within the time which is prescribed by the Court. Such rejection amounts to dismissing of the suit. A fresh plaint may be presented under Order 7 Rule 13 of the Code.
For the purpose of rejecting a plaint on this ground, the evaluation involved should be objective in nature. For example – In Meenakshi Sundaram Chettiar v. Venkatachalam Chettiar, the evaluation was of the rent of the leasehold. This is an objective evaluation.
In Commercial Aviation & Travel Company & Ors. v. Vimal Pannalal, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that while evaluating the value of the relief claim in the plaint, the Court needs to resort to the materials, evidence present. The respondent-plaintiff in paragraph 33 of the plaint had claimed relief estimating from 25 lakhs to 30 lakhs. This was also disputed because there was not an accurate estimate. However, the Court held that it was not unreasonable on the part of the respondent-plaintiff to do so. The appeal before the Supreme Court was dismissed and reasons were cited for the dismissal.
Relief under CPC
Relief also has to be specifically stated in the plaint. Rule 7 of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure requires that a plaint needs to contain the relief that the plaintiff claims. It can be anything i.e. damages, an injunction, declaration, appointment of a receiver, etc. If a plaintiff except when allowed by the Court omits any relief to which he is entitled to sue, he will not be granted such relief afterwards. Sometimes, the Court grants relief on a different ground than stated in the plaint. The relief claimed by the plaintiff or the defendant may be a general relief or an alternative relief.
Relief has been stated in the plaint clearly but the paper on which the plaint is written is not properly stamped (Order VII Rule 11(c))
As per Order VII Rule 11(c), a plaint is rejected by the Court if it has been written on a paper which has not been duly stamped and authorized. If the person is not able to make up for the deficiency, he can apply as a pauper as to continue the suit. Order under this rule for rejecting a plaint must only be given after the plaintiff has been given reasonable time to amend the situation.
In a case before the Calcutta High Court, Midnapur Zamindary Co. v. Secretary of State, the Court had required the plaintiff to supply the amended plaint with the duly stamped paper which he failed to do so. It was held by the Court that further, the plaintiff will not be allowed to amend the plaint and the plaintiff was directed to pay an extra amount of Court fees. The plaint was also rejected.
If the suit is barred by any Statute (Order VII Rule 11(d))
As per Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code, a plaint shall be rejected if the suit is barred by Limitation.
If a suit is barred by the Law of Limitation, the plaint of such a suit can be amended at the hearing. It is the duty of the Court to see whether there is non-disclosure of the cause of action or the plaint is barred under any law.
Wherever it can be shown by the plaintiff that the suit was filed within the time period of limitation, the provisions of this order will not be attracted. The computation of the period of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts.
For example – If a suit is brought against the Government without giving the requisite notice to the same under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaint for such a suit shall be rejected. Section 80 of the Code requires a notice which needs to be served to the Government or the public officer before instituting of the suit.
In Bachchu v. Secy of State, a suit was brought against the Secretary. This suit was brought without giving prior notice as required by Section 80 of the Code. The plaint was rejected.
Landmark Cases
In Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh, the cause of action had arisen when the plaintiff challenged the gift deed after a period of approximately twenty-two years from the date of the execution of the same. The plaintiff in the case has challenged the gift deed with the allegations that the gift deed is a showy one hence not binding.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court after hearing both sides, in view of the facts of the case, held that this suit is unequivocally prohibited by The Law of Limitation. And, the plaint needs to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code.
Provisions for Rejection of plaint
Order VII Rule 11(e) requires that a duplicate copy of the plaint along with the original one should be filed for instituting a suit. The plaint is rejected if the plaintiff fails to do.
Furthermore, Order VII Rule 11(f) states that if a plaintiff does not comply with Order VII Rule 9 of the Code, the plaint can be rejected.
Rule 9 Order VII of the Code specifies the procedure after the admission of the plaint. The plaintiff needs to attach a list of documents, a number of copies as required by the Court.
Other landmark cases on the rejection of the plaint
- It was held in Kalepu Pala Subrahmanyam v. Tiguti Venkata, a revision petition was dismissed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court stating that a plaint cannot be rejected in parts. The plaint needs to be rejected as a whole.
- It was held in Bibhas Mohan Mukherjee v. Hari Charan Banerjee, by the Calcutta High Court that an order which is passed for rejecting a plaint is a decree. And an appeal lies against the decree.
- It was held in K. ROJA v. U.S. RAYU, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that an application for rejection of plaint can be filed at any stage. The Court needs to dispose off such an application before the trial starts.
- In Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Astt. Charity Commr., a suit which had been filed at an earlier stage of recording evidence, another application was filed for delaying the proceedings of the suit, such application is deemed to be rejected.
- Under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, only the pleadings of the plaintiff are looked into. Neither the written statement nor the averments can be considered for an inquiry under the said order. (Kuldeep Singh Pathania v. Bikram Singh Jarya)
Procedure on rejecting the plaint
Under Order VII Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the procedure has been specified after the rejection of a plaint. According to the provisions, the Judge can make an order also recording the reasons for such order.
The language provided in the Code is mandatory and if the court does not make an order regarding the same, the plaint will still be deemed to be on record of the Court. (Parukutty Amma v. Ramaunni)
Extending time
It is upon the Court’s discretion to extend the time for applications under Order VII Rule 11 clauses (b) to(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. This has been done to ensure that proper Court fees have been paid for filing the suit. Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure has given powers to the Court for extending the time to do an action which is prescribed or allowed by the Code of Civil Procedure.
Limitation on an application made under Order VII Rule 11
An application for rejection of plaint has to be filed by the defendant before the proceedings of the trial commences.
Order 7 rule 11 Locus Standi
For filing a suit, the plaintiff needs to have a locus standi. He/She needs to show that some legal right of the person has been violated. Such violation should also result in some injury caused to the person. If no legal right has been violated, the person will not have a locus standi for filing a suit. It is basically the ability of the party to show the Court that there was a sufficient cause of action behind the filing of the suit. Under Order VII Rule 11, the locus standi of the suit depends upon whether any grounds were violated which resulted in rejection of the plaint.
In Sh. Ved Prakash v. 3 S.H.O, the judgment was given by the Delhi District Court. The application was decided under Order VII Rule 11 read along with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and sought rejection of the plaint.
The plaintiff filed the suit for an injunction by way of which he claimed that he was the co-sharer of 1/6th share recorded in the Revenue Board. On the basis of certain findings, it was averred that the plaintiff had no locus standi or any cause of action for filing the current suit. It was thus held that the plaintiff did not have any cause of action or locus standi to file the case. The suit was dismissed on the grounds of being infructuous.
In Pirthi Singh & Ors. v. Chander Bhan & Anr., a revision petition was filed by the petitioner-defendant in the present case against the order of the Ld. Judge of Junior Division. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that the defendant has misled the Court by stating the wrong facts. Thus, the application was dismissed wherein the Punjab-Harayana High Court stated that there was no illegality in the order passed by the Ld. Judge. And, thus the petitioners had no locus standi to file the case. Thus, such dismissal.
Dismissal of the suit v. Rejection of the plaint
The difference between the dismissal of suit and rejection of plaint is that there no specific grounds on which a suit can be dismissed. If the summons has not been duly served upon the defendant, the suit is liable to be dismissed. Another ground is that if neither party appears on the day of hearing, then the Court can make an order dismissing the suit. Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure states certain grounds on the basis of which a suit can be dismissed.
On the other hand, rejection of plaint occurs only under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. The plaint is rejected on the grounds which have been mentioned under the said Order.
Some crucial pointers to note on Order 7 Rule 11
Order 7 Rule 11 is mandatory power of the court, not optional
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanushali (discussed above), made an affirmation that there “shall” be a rejection of the plaint if any of the grounds stated under clause (a) to (e) are made out. If it is established by the court that the plaint does not reveal a suitable cause of action or if it is prohibited under any law, the court will have no other option than to reject the plaint. The provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 are not discretionary, but mandatory. Thus, if the plaint is against any of the ground rules under Rule 11 stated in the above paragraphs, the court cannot defy it and has to repudiate it.
Can a plaint be rejected by taking reference to the written statement
The Supreme Court in the case of Kamala & Ors. v. KT Eshwara (2008), via a two-judge bench, made the observation that the decision of whether a plaint must be refuted or not must be drawn from the averments made in the plaint. The Bench affirmed that such a procedure would be apt for invoking clause (d) of Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC and there cannot be any addition or subtraction on it.
In Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra (2002), the Supreme Court stated that, for considering Order 7 Rule 11, the court has to look into the averments in the plaint, and the trial court can exercise the same at any stage of the suit. The Court also held that it is obvious that the averments in the written statement are not reasonable and the Court has a duty to scrutinise the averments/please in the plaint. In simple words, the court must look at the averments in the plaint while coming to a conclusion on whether such a plaint must be rejected or not. At this stage, the pleas taken by the defendants are highly irrelevant, and the matter must only be decided on the averments of the plaint.
Please note: The legal dictionary meaning of the word ‘averment’ is “the allegation of facts or claims in a pleading“.
Moreover, in the landmark case of Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamath and Ors. (2021), the Supreme Court, while resolving the issue of “res judicata as a ground of rejection of plaint” stated that the justification given by the defendants must not be regarded while determining the merits of the application of rejecting a plaint on the ground of whether a suit is barred by law or not; thus, only the averments in the plaint must be taken into consideration.
Further, in the most recent 2022 case- Biswanath Baik v. Sulanga Bose, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the court has to consider and read the averments in the plaint as a whole. Referring to the verdict that occurred in the case of Ram Prakash Gupta v. Rajiv Kumar Gupta (2007), the Court declared that the rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 by going over only a few lines and passages of the plaint and not paying heed to all the other relevant parts of the plaint is impermissible.
Procedure on rejecting the plaint
Under Order VII Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the procedure has been specified after the rejection of a plaint. According to the provisions, the judge can make an order while also recording the reasons for such an order.
The language provided in the Code is mandatory and if the court does not make an order regarding the same, the plaint will still be deemed to be on record of the Court. The Court asserted the same in the case of P. Parukutty Amma and Anr. vs K.M. Ramanunni Nair and Ors. (1966).
Extending time
It is within the court’s discretion to extend the time for applications under Order 7 Rule 11clauses (b) and (c) of the CPC. This has been done to ensure that proper court fees have been paid for filing the suit. Section 148 of the CPC gives powers to the court to extend the time to do an action which is prescribed or allowed by the Code.
Rejection of plaint and ‘mixed question of law and fact’
This is yet another important facet to consider while reading Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. A major chunk of jurisprudence around Order 7 Rule 11 revolves around Rule 11(d), which has provisions relating to the rejection of a plaint in cases where the plaint is barred by law. Now, in cases where the conclusion of the bar of law is a ‘mixed question of law and fact’, the court does not order the rejection of a plaint. The explanation for such a procedure is quite straightforward; since a mixed question of law and fact cannot be determined on the sole basis of a plaint, and necessitates proper consideration of the evidence by the court, the plaints are not dismissed/rejected in such cases. As stated above, the court needs to only look at the averments in the plaint and reach a finding on the question of rejecting the plaint.
The two most well-known specimens of this particular scenario of mixed questions of law and fact are the bar of res judicata and the bar of limitation. Let us now have a look at some of the major cases regarding this element.
In the recent case of Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemanth Vithal Kamat & Ors. (2021), the Court, while dealing with the question of whether res judicata is a ground for rejection of a plaint or not, reached the conclusion that while determining the aforementioned question, the following four points are of utmost importance:
- The prior suit is decided.
- The issues in the succeeding suit were directly and to a great extent the matter of litigation (in issue) in the previous suit,
- The previous suit was among the same parties or parties from whom the relief is sought and thus is the process of litigation, under the same title, and that,
- These issues were adjudicated and finally decided by a court that was qualified to try this suit.
The bench, in this case, reasoned that since the adjudication of the plea of res judicata requires examination of the pleadings, issues, and outcomes of the earlier suits, such a plea would be beyond the scope of Order 7 Rule 11 (d), where only the statements in the plaint will have to be followed.
Additionally, in the well-known case of Smt. Sita Shripad Narvekar and ors. v. Auduth Timblo (2015), the Bombay High Court stated that for the purpose of reaching an inference on the application of Order 7 Rule 11 (d), the averments in the plaint must be scrutinised without adding or subtracting anything. Since res judicata is both- a mixed question of law and fact, the court will have to inspect it on the basis of evidence produced by the parties on the merits of the claim.
Moreover, in a recent case- Saranpal Kaur Anand v. Praduman Singh Chandhok (2022), the Supreme Court via a two-judge bench had contradictory opinions on whether the plaint in the aforementioned case should be dismissed considering the time-barred limitation. While Justice Sanjiv Khanna was of the opinion that the plaint itself portrayed that the suit was time-barred, Justice Bela Trivedi opined that such a limitation was a mixed question of law and fact, and thus, needed a trial.
Rejection of plaint as a decree
As stated in the above passages, the rejection of the plaint is deemed to be a decree under Section 2(2) of the CPC, and it brings an end to the lawsuit. However, the same may be appealed under Section 96 of the Code. Further, even if a plaint is rejected on any grounds stated under Order 7 Rule 11, the plaintiff is not prevented from filing a new suit regarding the same cause of action. In simple words, the rejection of the plaint does not prevent a plaintiff from filing a fresh suit on the same ground.
Alternative orders to rejection of plaint
Can an order of extension be granted by the court
The court has the authority to provide an extension of time to make the requisite changes as an alternative to rejecting a plaint if not doing so would result in injustice. The same can be done in the two below-mentioned cases:
- Where there is under-valuation of the relief claimed, and the plaintiff, fails to modify the valuation with the stipulated time fixed by the court;
- Where the relief claimed is valued properly, but the plaint is written on paper that is insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff fails to supply the required stamp paper within a stipulated time fixed by the court.
Can an order for alteration of the plaint be granted by the court
The issue of whether the court has the authority to permit the plaintiff to modify the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 to avoid the rejection of the plaint has been a question of judicial importance and has led to several clashing judgments by high courts.
However, to settle this issue, the Supreme Court in the case of Sayyed Ayaz v. Prakash G Goyal (2021), declared that there cannot be an order to amend the plaint in cases where the plaint is otherwise liable to be rejected under Rule 11(d). The inference occurred through the fact that the provision of Rule 11 is “compulsory” in nature and not discretionary. Thus, in such cases, the court has no authority to reject the plaint and the only alternative is to reject the plaint if it is barred by law or does not disclose any cause of action.
Abuse of process of law and re-litigation
One of the instances cited for abuse of the process of the court is re-litigation. It is not only an abuse of the court process but also against justice and public policy for a party to relitigate the same issue that has already been tried, decided, and rejected once. The court has the power to stop proceedings and reject plaints and suits that are of vexatious or meaningless nature and are filed to waste the time of the judiciary. Certainly, rejecting such a plaint is at the court’s discretion and must be exercised with caution. The jurisdiction must be exercised only in special cases, and the court must be satisfied that there is no chance of suit proceedings; the same was held in the case of M. Somasundaram and Anr v. V. Srinivasan (2009).
In another case- N. Babu v. Shanmugam (2013), the Court held that it is obvious that in the case of re-litigation, the court should dismiss the plaint at the earliest stages, and the filing of the subsequent suit is a clear abuse of the court’s process. Such behaviour should not be encouraged by the court. In yet another case, K. K. Modi v. K. N. Modi (1998), the Court declared that the court has the power to cease vexatious proceedings when it is evident that such a proceeding is an abuse of the court process. In Palanisamy Gounder v. Sankar Ramanathan and ors. (1993), it was inferred that the court is expected to filter and discard all the unwanted and vexatious lawsuits that would cause obstruction to the decree holder’s right to justice.
Dismissal of the suit v. rejection of the plaint
The difference between the dismissal of a suit and the rejection of a plaint is that there are no specific grounds on which a suit can be dismissed. If the summons has not been duly served upon the defendant, the suit is liable to be dismissed. Another ground is that if neither party appears on the day of the hearing, then the court can make an order dismissing the suit. Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure states certain grounds on the basis of which a suit can be dismissed.
On the other hand, rejection of a plaint occurs only under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code. The plaint is rejected on the grounds which have been mentioned under the said Order.
Landmark cases on the rejection of the plaint
Kalepu Pala Subrahmanyam v. Tiguti Venkata (1970)
In this case, it was held that a revision petition was dismissed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, stating that a plaint cannot be rejected in parts. The plaint needs to be rejected as a whole.
Bibhas Mohan Mukherjee v. Hari Charan Banerjee (1960)
- In this case, the Calcutta High Court held that an order which is passed for rejecting a plaint is a decree. And an appeal lies against the decree.
K. Roja v. U.S. Rayu & Anr. (1960)
- It was held in Roja v. U.S. Rayu & Anr. (1960), by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that an application for rejection of a plaint can be filed at any stage. The Court needs to dispose of such an application before the trial starts.
Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v.Astt. Charity Commr. (2004)
In Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Astt. Charity Commr. (2004), a suit which had been filed at an earlier stage of recording evidence, another application was filed for delaying the proceedings of the suit. Such an application was deemed to be rejected.
Kuldeep Singh Patania v. Bikram Singh Jarya (2017)
Under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, only the pleadings of the plaintiff are looked into. Neither the written statement nor the averments can be considered for an inquiry under the said order. The same was held in the case of Kuldeep Singh Pathania v. Bikram Singh Jarya (2017).
Other cases in rejecting a paint based on Order 7 Rule 11
T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal (1977)
In this case, the Court held that the reading of averments in the plaint should not only be formal but also meaningful. Having said that, if the plaint is filed in a witty manner and creates the illusion that there is a cause of action, but when read carefully, it is crystal clear there is no cause of action in the plaint, the court has to exercise its power conferred under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC.
Pearlite Liners (P) Ltd. v. Manorama Sirsi (2004)
In this case, it was stated that if the court reached a conclusion that none of the relief claimed by the plaintiff in the suit can be awarded under the law, a question occurs as to can such a suit be allowed to proceed to trial; here, it declared that when the suit is bound to be rejected for want of jurisdiction of a court to grant such a relief, why should it be tried at all at the first place, and thus, rejected the plaint.
Mayar (HK) Ltd. and ors. v. Owners and parties (2006)
In this case, the Supreme Court held that under Order 7 Rule 11, the plaint cannot be rejected on the basis of an allegation made by the defendant in the written statement, and that rejection requires proper scrutiny by the court. The mere fact that the judge is of the opinion that the plaint will not succeed cannot be the reason for rejecting the plaint.
Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. Transport Corporation of India (2007)
In this case, the Court held that a plaint cannot be dismissed on the basis that there was an excessive delay in serving the summons to the defendants. The Court further said that there is no procedure under the CPC as such that dismisses plaint about the delay caused in serving the summons.
Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyani Bhanusali (2020)
In this case, both the trial court as well as the High Court of Gujarat rejected the application of plaint and the aggrieved party approached the Supreme Court for this matter, and even in the Apex Court, the same decision was reached.
However, the Court went a little further and defined the true essence of Order 7 Rule 11. The Court, while citing the Rajiv Gandhi case, expressed that the main purpose of Order 7 Rule 11 is to reject meaningless and vexatious litigation, thus, saving the time of the judiciary. It also made the observation that all the documents submitted along with the plaint under Order 7 Rule 14 must be considered as a whole and a part of the plaint. Furthermore, it was enunciated that if the court finds that the suit is meaningless or is vexatious and lacks merit, it has the power to reject the plaint. Moreover, if it is established that the plaint is cleverly drafted and creates an illusion of a cause of action, it should be rejected to end such bogus litigation at the earliest stage.
Recommendations
- It has been witnessed that the lack of specifications in Order 7 Rule 11 tends to waste the time and resources of courts as well as the parties involved in a matter. A recommendation that we would propose is the introduction of an amendment for the same. The last amendment to Rule 11 was brought in the year 2002 substituting sub clauses (f) and (g) with the current sub clause (f). This clearly has not successfully been able to save the time of the courts and prevent sham litigation. A new amendment, giving a more definition to the current law is therefore necessary.
- As can be inferred from the above analysis, the stage for rejection of the plaint has not been specified anywhere in the grounds under Order 7 Rule 11 and the Supreme Court on this issue has interpreted that the Trial Court can apply Order 7 Rule 11 and reject the plaint at any stage due to which it can be seen that various problems arise leading to a wastage of the time and resources of the courts as well as parties. Therefore it is required that our legislature through an amendment of Order 7 Rule 11 clearly states and provides more significance on determining the grounds for rejection of plaint (for example: whether the suit is barred by limitation or whether there is a cause of action present) at the initial stages of the proceedings so before admitting the plaint, the Courts will be bound to focus on certain grounds thoroughly, upon which the plaint can be rejected which could help in the preservation of time and resources of the Courts and the parties as well. The number of plaints that are not rejected at the preliminary stage that do not fulfil the requirements made by the provisions of the law would be minimalistic and certain issues regarding rejection of the plaint can be determined by the courts at the initial stages of the proceedings only.
Significant points to be noted on Order 7 Rule 11: end key taken
- The plaint cannot be rejected in parts, i.e., it has to be either rejected as a whole or not at all.
- When a suit is filed with mala fide intent to cause a delay in the proceeding, the court has the power to reject it.
- The order which is rejected is a decree by a court and hence, it is appealable.
Conclusion
The Code of Civil Procedure is an exhaustive statute which covers the whole procedure which needs to be followed by all the civil courts in India. The plaint is the first step to filing a suit in court. It needs to be drafted with due diligence. It must include all the particulars that have been mentioned in Order VII of the Code.
Moreover, the rejection of a plaint, as stated under Order 7 Rule 11, is one of the most beneficial remedies for saving the precious time of the judiciary, along with safeguarding innocent respondents from prolonged court cases and the legal struggle associated with them.
Order 7 Rule 11’s status as a ‘deemed decree’ and the explicit statement by the legislation that there is “no bar on a fresh plaint” to be filed, on the ground that the previous plaint was rejected, guarantee enough cushioning for this provision to not work prejudicially against the innocent plaintiffs. Thus, if a court rejects or dismisses a plaint, a new suit on the same subject matter can be brought by the plaintiff again; thus, the plaintiff is not barred from bringing a subsequent suit on the same issue.
To conclude, if a plaint is defective on any of the grounds under Order 7 Rule 11, the court has the authority to dismiss it via an order stating the reasons thereof.
Sample application by the defendant for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF LUCKNOW AT LUCKNOW
(Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction)
I.A. No. 768 of 2019
In
C.A. 3746 of 2019
IN THE MATTER OF:
Sujeet Bhaskar …Plaintiff
Versus
Sujata Bhaskar ….Defendant
APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT UNDER Order 7 Rule 11READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT
THE DEFENDANT MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
- That the plaintiff has filed this suit purportedly for eviction of the defendant and for damages. It is being stated that the plaint is liable to rejection under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as the plaint does not disclose within itself the cause of action required to be taken.
- That without any prejudice towards the assertions made by the Defendants the instant suit does not have any jurisdiction. Thus, the plaint is liable to be set aside on this ground. The plaint does not disclose the publication of the impugned news articles which are required by law within Lucknow. It is to be noted that the plaint does not contain the name of the person or persons who perpetually “read the news articles on the website, and were shocked at the reports of the same.” which defamed the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims that the defamation occurred in Lucknow.
- It is further submitted on behalf of the defendants that besides just reproducing the statements of the Defendant in the news articles on ParaBlog, Plaintiff does not have evidence to prove the falsity and malice behind the statements so made. Plaintiff nowhere has disclosed why he is claiming that the statements so impugned are untrue and are not based on a fair comment. Thus, it is respectfully being submitted on behalf of the Respondents that merely stating that some statement is defamatory does not render such a statement to be so unless proven.
- THAT it is further submitted that the impugned news articles which concern the plaintiff are being justified by the defendant in the nature of ‘Fair Comment’. It is apparent from a bare reading of the written statement also. Defendant has expressed an undisputed, independent and academic view that was just based on facts. Such facts were admitted to by the plaintiff. The same has been mentioned in the pleadings which were filed by the plaintiff. It is unequivocal that the comments so made in the news article were based upon facts and a set of true statements in all its entirety. There is no malice on the part of Defendant towards Plaintiff. Defendant has written news articles in praise of Plaintiff as well.
- Referring to the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, a plaint is liable to be rejected when it does not disclose a cause of action in itself. Furthermore, the deliberate making of statements in support of Plaintiff made by the Defendant is indicative of the fact that Plaintiff has malafide intentions.
- It should be noted that ParaBlog news articles deal exhaustively with the current affairs of the legal field in the country. The authors at ParaBlog aim at providing an informative website for its users who can gain knowledge. The articles are read by academicians, researchers and other professionals who want to keep themselves updated with the developments in the field of law. The blog never in the past, or never in the future will hurt the sentiments of any person via its writings and published articles.
- THAT the application for rejection of the plaint is bonafide and has been made for the ends of justice.
- It is further submitted that the question of rejection of plaint has to be ascertained in accordance with the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11which provides that a plaint shall be rejected if no cause of action has been disclosed in the same. In the present suit, the plaint is liable to be rejected on the same ground, as the plaintiff failed to disclose a cause of action.
PRAYER:
Wherefore, in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, the defendant humbly prays before this Hon’ble Court that the Court shall:
- Reject the plaint;
- Ascertain the costs and order them in favour of the defendant;
- Pass another order that this Hon’ble Court deems to be fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
It is prayed accordingly.
Name and Signature of the Defendant
Thorugh
Lucknow Name of the Advocate
Date: June 29, 2019 Advocates for the Defendant
Affidavit to be included by the defendant:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF LUCKNOW AT LUCKNOW
(Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction)
I.A. No. 768 of 2019
In
C.A. 3746 of 2019
IN THE MATTER OF:
Sujeet Bhaskar …Plaintiff
Versus
Sujata Manchandani…Defendant
Affidavit of Ms Sujata Manchandani, aged about 29 years, D/O of Mr Gurtej Manchandani, R/O M-28, Alpha Street, Gamma Nagar, Beta Pradesh – 226080
I, the above-named deponent, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
- I am the Defendant in the present matter and am well-versed with the facts and circumstances of the present case. I am authorised and am competent to swear and depose this affidavit.
- I have perused the contents of the accompanying application under Order 7 Rule 11read in consonance with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and say the same is true to the best of my knowledge and derived from the records maintained by me
- I say that adopt the contents of the accompanying applications part and parcel of my present affidavit as the same are not reproduced for the sake of brevity.
I, Sujata Manchandani, the above-named deponent, do hereby declare and verify that the contents of paras 1 to 3 are true to the best of my knowledge and nothing material to this case has been concealed by me and no part of it is false.
DEPONENT
Verified at Lucknow on the 29th of June, 2019
[Sign]
Deponent
Date: 29/06/2019
Sample reply by the plaintiff on an application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF LUCKNOW AT LUCKNOW
(Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction)
I.A. No. 768 of 2019
In
C.A. 3746 of 2019
IN THE MATTER OF:
Sujeet Bhaskar …Plaintiff
Versus
Sujata Bhaskar ….Defendant
REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF TO THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE DEFENDANT UNDER Order 7 Rule 11READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908
THE PLAINTIFF MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
On prima facie reading of the application, the plaintiff chooses to deny all the statements and averments made by the defendant, except those which are mentioned herein the reply:
- That the contents of paragraph no. 1 of the application are accepted to the extent that Plaintiff has filed this suit against Defendant for defamation, permanent injunction, and other reliefs. The other contents of the paragraph are hereby false and are liable to be rejected. Furthermore, it is being specifically denied on behalf of the plaintiffs that the plaint is liable to be rejected in accordance with the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is also denied that the plaint fails to mention a cause of action. It is being submitted that what the defendant perceives as a fair comment has degraded the defamation of the Plaintiff in the eyes of a reasonable and prudent man in society.
- It is being submitted that the contents of paragraph no. 2 are misleading and hence are denied by the plaintiff. It is being denied that the plaint fails to disclose the publication of the two news articles within Lucknow. It is also being denied that the plaint does not disclose who read the articles and expressed shock at the news articles. It is also denied that the plaint is liable to be rejected on this ground. Furthermore, it is being submitted that the news articles were read in Lucknow. It is wrong to say that there was no cause of action or that the Hon’ble Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the matter. In the same way, these news articles were being read widely by the people in Lucknow.
- It is being submitted that the contents of paragraph no. 3 are misleading and hence are denied by the plaintiff. It is being denied that the defendant has not merely reproduced the various statements made in the news articles. Plaintiff does not make any attempts to demonstrate the malice behind the statements. It is thus submitted that Plaintiff has rightly included the cause of action in the Plaint.
- It is further submitted that the contents of paragraph no. 4 of the application are false and hence are being denied by Plaintiff. It is further submitted that the views expressed by Defendant are not purely independent or academic in any way. It is also being submitted that the same comments also do not qualify as a “Fair Comment”. These comments are laced with falsity and are of defamatory value. It is a comment which is vindictive in nature. Such comments cannot be said to have been made in good faith per se. By making such statements, Defendant has hurt the reputation of Plaintiff.
- It is being submitted that paragraph no. 5 of the application is based on falsity, is misleading, is incorrect and thus, this is being denied by Plaintiff. It is being denied by Plaintiff that he has not disclosed the cause of action. It is also denied that the present suit is liable to be set aside on the ground mentioned by Defendant. It is also being submitted that Defendant has failed to produce any grounds in the present application. The sole purpose of the Defendant is to delay the proceedings of the Court by filing such frivolous and vexatious applications.
- Lastly, it is being submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs that the contents mentioned in paragraph no. 6 of the application are also incorrect, and misleading and hence are denied. It is being submitted that the plaint was filed with bonafide intention and for the ends of justice. It is also being submitted that harm and prejudice will be caused to the applicant if the application is not allowed.
REPLY TO THE PRAYER:
The Plaintiffs pray before this Hon’ble Court that, in accordance with the facts and circumstances of the case as mentioned in the plaint and the present reply, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the present application for rejection of the plaint with exemplary costs.
Name and Signature of the Plaintiff
Through
Lucknow
Name of the Advocate
Affidavit to be included by the plaintiff in the reply given:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF LUCKNOW AT LUCKNOW
(Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction)
I.A. No. 768 of 2019
In
C.A. 3746 of 2019
IN THE MATTER OF:
Sujeet Bhaskar …Plaintiff
Versus
Sujata Manchandani ….Defendant
Affidavit of Mr. Sujeet Bhaskar, aged about 49 years, S/O of Mr. Karanjeet Bhaskar, R/O X-28, Little Winching, Near the Godric Hollow – 226090
I, the above-named deponent, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
- I am the Plaintiff in the present matter and am well-versed with the facts and circumstances of the present case. I am authorised and am competent to swear and depose this affidavit.
- I have perused the contents of the accompanying reply which is being filed by me, and has been drafted by my attorney under my instructions.
- I have read and understood the contents of the affidavit to the best of my knowledge.
I, Sujeet Bhaskar, the above-named deponent, do hereby declare and verify that the contents of paras 1 to 6 are true to the best of my knowledge and nothing material to this case has been concealed by me, and no part of it is false.
DEPONENT
Verified at Godric Hollow on the 29th of June, 2019
[Sign]
Deponent
Date: 29/06/2019
Please note: The above applications are only for reference purposes. It is always advisable to seek legal assistance when filing such applications.
References
Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.
LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:
Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.
Allow notifications
