Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Plaint Cannot Be Rejected Merely On The Ground That

'Plaintiff Is Not Entitled To Any Reliefs In The Suit': Supreme Court Asho

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-rejection-of-plaint-order-vii-rule-11-cpc-214207?
infinitescroll=1

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
 What is Order 7 Rule 11
o Difference between rejection of plaint and return of plaint
o The object of Order 7 Rule 11
o Nature of Order 7 Rule 11: non-exhaustive
o Nature of power of remedy under Order 7 Rule 11
 Rejection of Plaint
 Grounds of rejection of the plaint
o The cause of action is not mentioned [Order VII Rule 11(a)]
 What is the cause of action
 Cause of action as a ground for rejection
 Order II Rule 2 of the Code
 Joinder of causes of action
 Misjoinder of a cause of action
o The relief claimed in the plaint is undervalued (Order VII Rule 11(b))
 Relief under the CPC
o 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)]
o If the suit is barred by any statute [Order VII Rule 11(d)]
 Landmark cases
o If the plaint is not filed in duplicate [Order 7 Rule 11(e)]
o If the plaint does not comply with Order 7 Rule 9
o If the plaint doesn’t mention a cause of action (Order VII Rule 11(a))
 Order 7 rule 11 Cause of Action
 Order II Rule 2 of the Code
o Joinder of Causes of Action
o Misjoinder of Cause of Action
 Case Laws
 Grounds of rejection of the plaint
o The relief claimed in the plaint is undervalued (Order VII Rule 11(b))
 Relief under CPC
o 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))
 If the suit is barred by any Statute (Order VII Rule 11(d))
o Landmark Cases
 Provisions for Rejection of plaint
o Other landmark cases on the rejection of the plaint
 Procedure on rejecting the plaint
o Extending time
 Limitation on an application made under Order VII Rule 11
 Order 7 rule 11 Locus Standi
 Dismissal of the suit v. Rejection of the plaint
 Some crucial pointers to note on Order 7 Rule 11
o Order 7 Rule 11 is mandatory power of the court, not optional
o Can a plaint be rejected by taking reference to the written statement
o Procedure on rejecting the plaint
o Extending time
o Rejection of plaint and ‘mixed question of law and fact’
o Rejection of plaint as a decree
o Alternative orders to rejection of plaint
 Can an order of extension be granted by the court
 Can an order for alteration of the plaint be granted by the court
o Abuse of process of law and re-litigation
o Dismissal of the suit v. rejection of the plaint
 Landmark cases on the rejection of the plaint
o Kalepu Pala Subrahmanyam v. Tiguti Venkata (1970)
o Bibhas Mohan Mukherjee v. Hari Charan Banerjee (1960)
o K. Roja v. U.S. Rayu & Anr. (1960)
o Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v.Astt. Charity Commr. (2004)
o Kuldeep Singh Patania v. Bikram Singh Jarya (2017)
 Other cases in rejecting a paint based on Order 7 Rule 11
o T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal (1977)
o Pearlite Liners (P) Ltd. v. Manorama Sirsi (2004)
o Mayar (HK) Ltd. and ors. v. Owners and parties (2006)
o Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. Transport Corporation of India (2007)
o Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyani Bhanusali (2020)
 Recommendations
 Significant points to be noted on Order 7 Rule 11: end key taken
 Conclusion
 Sample application by the defendant for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11
 Affidavit to be included by the defendant:
 Sample reply by the plaintiff on an application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII
Rule 11
 Affidavit to be included by the plaintiff in the reply given:
 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.
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:

1. Accept the plaint,

2. Reject the plaint,
3. 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:

1. That there existed a duty to adhere to,

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.

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 –

1. Claims for mesne profit or arrears of rent in respect of the property

claimed or any part thereof;
2. Claims for damages for breach of any contract under which the
property or any part thereof is held;
3. 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 –

1. Claims for mesne profit or arrears of rent in respect of the property

claimed or any part thereof;
2. Claims for damages for breach of any contract under which the
property or any part thereof is held;
3. 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:

1. The prior suit is decided.

2. The issues in the succeeding suit were directly and to a great extent
the matter of litigation (in issue) in the previous suit,
3. 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,
4. 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:

1. 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;
2. 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
1. 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.
2. 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
1. The plaint cannot be rejected in parts, i.e., it has to be either rejected
as a whole or not at all.
2. When a suit is filed with mala fide intent to cause a delay in the
proceeding, the court has the power to reject it.
3. 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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. THAT the application for rejection of the plaint is bonafide and has
been made for the ends of justice.
8. 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:

1. Reject the plaint;

2. Ascertain the costs and order them in favour of the defendant;
3. 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:

1. 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.
2. 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
3. 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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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