In this article, Lakshay Kewalramani discusses Application for Rejection of Plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.

Introduction

Code of Civil Procedure is a constitution of Civil/Commercial Courts, Civil Jurisdiction and Appellate Civil Division in the High Court for adjudicating commercial/civil disputes. It is the foundation subject for anyone to understand Civil Jurisdiction and procedure of Civil Courts. That is why it is called procedural law as it contains the procedure in civil suits. Code of Civil Procedure, 1907 is the basis for anyone to practice Litigation in the civil side.

Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, discusses Rejection of Plaint. CPC, 1907 contains a provision in Order 7 Rule 11 of the code that whenever a plaint is filed in any civil court for any claim/compensation to be recovered from the opposite party it can be rejected by fulfilling the following conditions mentioned below.

Rejection of plaint — The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases

(a) Where it does not disclose a cause of action – If the plaintiff does not discloses facts that give the plaintiff right to seek relief against defendant, the facts that are necessary to prove the damage caused to plaintiff. Case law on this provision – S.M.P. Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. V. World Tanker Carrier Corporation; AIR 2000 Bom 34.

(b) Where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(c) Where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so – If the plaint is insufficient stamp under court fees act and the plaintiff fails to supply the plaint with correct stamp value.

(d) Where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; Example when the plaint filed looks like to be barred by any statue and gives no right to plaintiff to file the suit and liable to rejected if the court accepts the plaint is barred by law.

(e) Where it is not filed in duplicate – In any suit a duplicate copy of the plaint has to be filed and when a duplicate copy of plaint is not filed it is liable to be dismissed.

(f) Where the plaintiff fails to comply with provisions of rule 9 – Where the plaintiff fails to comply with the order 7 rule 9

Provided that, the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature form correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.

Click here

Provisions on rejection of plaint under the Code of Civil Procedure

1.) Order 7 Rule 12- Procedure on rejecting plaint: where a plaint is rejected the Judge shall record an order to that effect with reasons for such order.

2.) Order 7 Rule 13 – Where rejection of plaint does not preclude presentation of fresh plaint -The rejection of the plaint on any of the grounds mentioned in rule 11 shall not of its own force preclude the plaintiff from presenting a fresh plaint in respect of the same cause of action.

Two modes of rejecting plaint

1. The Defendant can file an application in the form of Interlocutory Application in any stage of proceedings.
2. Suo moto rejection under order 7 rule 11. Suo moto means own its own motion the court can itself try a suit under order 7 rule 11 if the plaint fulfils the conditions above discussed.

Landmark cases on rejection of plaint

• A plaint cannot be rejected in part and retained part under this rule. It must be rejected as a whole. As held in Kalepur Pala Subrahmanyam v. Tiguti Venkata. AIR 1971 AP 313.
• Where the suit filed earlier was at the stage of recording of evidence and an application under order 7 rule 11 of the code was filed to delay the proceedings of the suit, the application under order 7 rule 11 of the code was rejected. As held in Sopan Sukhdeo Sable V. Asstt. Charity Commr. AIR 2004 SC 569 (572).
• In Kuldeep Singh Pathania vs. Bikram Singh Jarya: – Court held has held that for an Application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) of Code of Civil Procedure, only the pleadings of the plaintiff can be looked into and neither the Written Statement nor averments can be considered for enquiry
• Application for Rejection of Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be filed at any stage and the Court has to dispose of the same before proceeding with the trial, the Apex Court has reiterated in K. ROJA VS. U. S. RAYU…
• An order rejecting a plaint is a decree and hence is Appealable. Held in Bibhas Mohan Mukherjee v. Hari Charan Banerjee AIR 1961Cal 491 (FB).

Conclusion

Readers may get comprehensive understanding of this provisions and how it can get beneficial for them to understand. Code of Civil Procedure, 1907 is the most important subject for anyone who wants to get in litigation and who wants increase their knowledge in civil litigation. Apart from this there are various of applications that are prescribed in Code of Civil Procedure, 1907 to meet the ends of justice and prevent injustice. These applications need to filed with the main Reply from Defendant or at any other stage of proceedings.

The author can be contacted at [email protected]

Sample Application of rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11

IN THE COURT OF THE LD. ^{………….} CIVIL JUDGE, ( Sr.Dv) at (District Name)

T.S.No.-…………. of …………….

……………………. …………………………..Plaintiff

VS

…………………………………………………….Defendant

An application under Order 7 Rule 11 r/w section 151 of CPC

1. That the plaintiff has filed this suit purportedly for eviction of  the defendant and for damages.

2. That primarily the allegations of the plaintiff is that the father of the plaintiff-Late Sivaji Sen, Director of M/S PEC Boilers(Pvt)Ltd was the original tenant and he undertook before hs untimely death to vacate the suit premises by the year 2003.

3. That it is the further case of the plaintiff that as the original tenant having not extended the tenancy before his death, the said tenancy comes to end with his death on ……….

4. That it s the further case of the plaintiff that the rate of rent of the suit premises having been more that Rs 6500/-, he is not eligible for protection under West Bengal Premises of Tenancy Act and he is liable to be evicted under the provision of section 106 of Transfer of Property Act.

5. That the plaintiff has further contended that he has already sent a notice determining the tenancy u/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and hence the instant suit has been filed under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act.

6. That the plaintiff on the other hand has categorically contended in his pleading vide paragraph no.11 that the defendant is not a tenant. The relevant portion of the pleading has been reproduced here as follows- “ That the defendant hs left the said premises and has been residing elsewhere and in all material times the portion of the said tenancy is lying vacant thereby he has no legal right to occupy the premises and cause inconvenience to the plaintiff. More so, at no point of time the defendant asked the plaintiff to transfer the tenancy in his name and nor he has paid or tendered full amount of rent thereby there is no landlord-tenancy relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant is thereby occupying the suit premises in an unlawful manner.’’

7. That the plaintiff has also stated in his pleading that the defendant is illegally occupying the suit premises as a trespasser. Therefore according to the plaintiff the defendant is a trespasser.

8. That on the basis of the unequivocal contention of the plaintiff that the defendant s not a tenant at all and there is no relationship of landlord and the tenant, this suit has got no legs to stand.

9. That the plaintiff having conceded the defendant as not a tenant, rather a trespasser, the present sut for eviction of the defendant under the Provision of Transfer of Property Act is totally barred by law.

10. That because of this contention the present suit for eviction of the defendant does not disclose any cause of action.

11. That on the bare perusal of the pleading of the plaintiff it becomes quite clear that the plaintiff does not consider the defendant as a tenant and on the contrary he has clearly contended that such relationship is absolutely absent between the parties herein. According to the plaintiff the defendant is rather a trespasser.

12. That if that being the case of the plaintiff then the present suit under the provision of the Transfer of Puppetry Act can not surely be maintainable as having not only barred by law but also having disclosing no cause of action to sue the defendant under the provision of the Transfer of Property Act.

13. That it is the established principle of law that while considering the question of rejection of plaint, the court needs to peruse the plaint only and on bare perusal t becomes quite clear that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action ro is barred by law then the court need not look into any other document and the suit should be nipped in the bud.

14. That while considering this aspect the court should be careful to look beyond the clever drafting and see on the root of the case as to whether the plaintiff has any cause of action or not. The provision of rejection of plaint has been enacted to discourage the litigants from flooding the courts with frivolous and vexatious claims. Whenever the court even on its own motion finds a suit to be deficient in having a cause of action, such suit should be  rejected so that there is no more any abuse of the process of the court.

15. That the court can reject a plaint at any stage of proceeding if it is satisfied that the conditions of the provision is satisfied. Clever drafting creating an illusion of cause of action are not permitted in law and a clear right to sue must be shown in the plaint. Moreover, the power under order 7 rule 11 is not exhaustive and the court has got inherent powers to see that the vexatious litigations are not allowed to take or consume the time of the court. It is needless to submit that the provision for rejection of plaint is mandatory and the court is bound to act if the plaint is found to be lacking in cause of action or debarred to proceed ahead by any provision of law.

16. That if that being the position in law then in the context of pleading of the plaintiff this suit can not be allowed to proceed ahead and the plaint should be rejected having disclosing no cause of action to sue under the provision of Transfer of Property Act.

17. That the present petition s bona fide and for ends of justice.

18. That the petitioner would be prejudiced if the prayer for rejection of plaint is rejected. For ends of justice this petition be allowed.

In the circumstances mentioned above it is therefore be prayed that your honour be pleased to reject the plaint as provided for under the provision of order 7 rule 11 of cpc. And to pass such other order as deemed fit and proper.

A F F I D A V I T

I Sri …………s/o …………………., aged about XX years , by faith hindu, by profession – business , resident of …………………………, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as follows:-

1. That I am the plaintiff of this case and as such I am fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the same.

2. That the statements mentioned above are true to my knowledge and belief.

Deponent

Identified by me

Advocate

References:

1. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
2. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Amendment act, 1999.
3. Sarkar’s Code of Civil Procedure.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/joinchat/J_0YrBa4IBSHdpuTfQO_sA