CPC Homework - 4 Order Vii-Plaint: Hon'ble Supreme Court of India Stated That in
Uploaded by
uma mishraCPC Homework - 4 Order Vii-Plaint: Hon'ble Supreme Court of India Stated That in
Uploaded by
uma mishraCPC HOMEWORK - 4
ORDER VII- PLAINT
RULE 1. Particulars to be contained in plaint— The plaint shall contain the following
particulars:—
(a) the name of the Court in which the suit is brought ;
(b) the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff;
(c) the name, description and place of residence of the defendant, so far as they can be
ascertained;
(d) where the plaintiff or the defendant is a minor or a person of unsound mind, a statement to
that effect;
(e) the facts constituting the cause of action and when it arose;
(f) the facts showing that the Court has jurisdiction;
(g) the relief which the plaintiff claims;
(h) where the plaintiff has allowed a set-off or relinquished a portion of his claim, the amount
so allowed or relinquished; and
(i) a statement of the value of the subject-matter of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction
and of court fees, so far as the case admits.
Interpretation
Rule 1 of Order 7 specifies the particulars required to be contained in the plaint. In the case
of Janakirama Iyer v. Nilkantha Iyer1 Hon’ble Supreme Court of India stated that in
construing the plaint the Court must have regard to all relevant allegations made in the plaint
and must look at the substance of the matter and not the form as given in case of . In the
case of Parvati v. Sheo Ram2 Himachal Pradesh High Court stated that while giving
name, description and place of residence of the Defendant, his occupation if known should
also be mentioned in the case
ORDER 7 RULE 11
Rejection of plaint
The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:--
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(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 written 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 ;
1
: AIR 1962 SC 633
2
: AIR 1989 HP 29
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law:
1[(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;]
2[(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply sub-rule (2) of rule 9;]
3[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 for
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.]
Interpretation
The meaning of rejection of the plaint is that the plaint is thrown away as not validly
instituted without determining the right of the parties in controversy. Rule 11 of Order VII
makes available an independent remedy to the Defendant to challenge the maintainability of
the suit itself, irrespective of his right to contest the same on merits. It was held by the
Supreme Court In the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India3 that the
said Clauses (e) and (f) of Order VII Rule 11 are procedural and would not require automatic
rejection of plaint at the first instance. If there is any defect as contemplated by Rule 11 (e) or
non-compliance as referred to in Rule 11 (f), the Courts should ordinarily give an opportunity
for rectifying the defect and in the event of the same not being done the Court will have the
liberty or the right to reject the plaint, thus the effect of these provisions have been
considerably diluted by the Supreme Court.
In the Case of Maharaja Jagat Singh v. Lt. Col. Bhawani Singh 4 Delhi High Court stated
that the real object of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code is to keep out of the Courts irresponsible
law suits. The jurisdiction can be exercised where the Court is prima facie of the view that the
suit is an abuse of the process of the Court in the sense that it is a bogus and irresponsible
litigation a plaint however, cannot be rejected on the basis of the allegations made by the
Defendant in his written statement or in an application for rejection of the plaint. The Court is
only to look into the averments made in the plaint and the documents annexed therewith. It
cannot, for the determination of this application, look into the defence set up by the
Defendants
Name – Uma Shankar Mishra
Roll No. 18LLB091
3
AIR 2003 SC 189
4
AIR 1996 Del 14.