You are on page 1of 22

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY REJECTION OF
PLAINT
A PROJECT ON C.P.C

AKANKSHA DIPANKAR
Page |1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Working on this project on “REJECTION OF PLAINT” was a source of immense knowledge to


me. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to MR.SHARMA for his guidance and valuable
support thought out the course of this project work.

I acknowledge with a deep sense of gratitude, the encouragement and inspiration received from
our faculty members and friends. I would also like to thank my parents for their love and support
throughout.

AKANKSHA DIPANKAR
Page |2

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTERS PAGE NOS.

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………..………..1

CHAPTER 2.ORDER 7,RULE 11……………………………………………………....7-9

CHAPTER 3. GROUNDS FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT………………................10-13

CHAPTER 4. DISMISSAL AND REJECTION………………………………………..14

CHAPTER 5. APPEAL…………………………………………………………………...15

CHAPTER 6. REVISION…………………………………………………………………15

CHAPTER 7. REVIEW……………………………………………………………………..16

CHAPTER 8. IRREGULAR ORDER OF REJECTION………………………………….16

CHAPTER 9. HIGH COURT AMENDMENTS……………………………………………17

CHAPTER 10. IMPORTANT AND LATEST JUDGEMENTS OF THE APEX COURT


AND HIGH COURTS………………………………………………………………………18-19

CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………………………..20

BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………………………….21
Page |3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:-

For the completion of this project Doctrinal method has been used. The research is based on
comprehensive study of various books, journals, judgements and articles available on Rejection
of plaint and other web resources.

SOURCE OF DATA:-

Primary as well as secondary Source of data was collected while completing the project work.

AIMS & OBJECTIVES:-

By doing this project we came to know about the scope of this rule is not wider as it does not
cover all of the cases where rejection of plaint can be done. The court can reject the plaint where
any rule is not followed properly whose observance is indispensable for the ends of justice.

HYPOTHESIS:-

The researcher in the hypothesis presumes that the rejection of plaint is a discretionary power
exercised by court.
Page |4

INTRODUCTION

Rule 11 Order 7 deals with “rejection of plaint” and lays down the grounds therefore. The Rule,
as it originally was, specified four grounds for such rejection. The Rule as it now exists has two
new grounds added to it in the form of clauses (e) and (f) inserted respectively by way of
amendment in 1999 and 2002.

Clause(e) provides for rejection of the plaint “where it is not filed in duplicate”. Reference, in
this connection, may be made to rule 2 of Order 5 (substituted by Amendment Act of 1999)
which provides that every summons shall be accompanied by copy of the plaint”. This means
that the plaint shall be filed in duplicate (one original and one copy).

And the newly- added clause(e) to rule 11 of Order 7, that provides that the plaint shall be
rejected “where it is not filed in duplicate”. Rule 1 and 2 of Order 7 should, therefore be read
together.

Clause (f) comes into play where provisions of rule 9 of Order 7 are not complied with.
Incidentally, rule 9 provides that where the court orders the summons to be served on the
defendant in the manner provided in rule 9 of Order 5 (which lays down in detail the manner of
service of summons upon the defendant by the Court), it will direct the plaintiff to present as
many copies of the plaint as there are defendants within seven days from the date of the order,
along with requisite fees for service of such summons on the defendants. It may not be out of
place to maintain here that for non-compliance of rule 9 of Order 7 two distinct legal
consequences follow :-

1. rejection of the plaint under clause (f) of rule 11 of Order 7

2. dismissal of the suit under rule 2 of Order 9.

These, accordingly, are effective steps to shorten the life of a suit by restricting the plaintiff to
the mandatory provisions which refuse to allow him opportunity to obtain unnecessary
adjournments for due compliance but remain silent about the consequences of non-compliance.
Page |5

SUPREME COURT VIEW ON NEW CLAUSES(E) AND (F)--

it appears that these clauses being procedural would not require the automatic rejection of the
plaint at the first instance, if there is any defect as contemplated by r 11(e) or non-compliance as
referred to in r.11(f), the court should ordinarily give an opportunity for rectifying the defects
and in the event of the same not being done the court will have the liberty or the right to reject
the plaint.1

REASONABLE CAUSE OF ACTION—

A reasonable cause of action is said to mean a cause of action with some chances of success
when only the allegations in the pleadings are considered. The failure of the pleadings to disclose
a reasonable cause of action is distinct from the absence of full particulars2.

NO REJECTION OF PLAINT—

Court has to look at the substance of the plaint and not its form.3 Court shall not throw out a
plaint on mere technicality of the pleadings. In appropriate cases court must grant relief. The
plaint is not liable to be rejected even if correct relief is not claimed. If the relief claimed is not
proved court will mould the relief .

Or 7,r.11 requires the plaintiff to plead all material facts upon which his right to relief is based
and from which court will draw conclusion in his favour. Facts constituting cause of action thus
must find place in plaint. While plaint can be rejected under Or.7, r.11(a) if it does not disclose a
cause of action it cannot be rejected on the plea that there is no cause of action for suit. A suit
cannot be dismissed by rejection of plaint for not having claimed correct relief court can mould
the relief under Or.7,r 74. Plaint cannot be rejection under Or7, r.11(c)on the ground of
limitation5 There is cause of action against some defendants and there is none against others. The
names of the latter have to be stuck off. If a plaint is liable to be rejected as against some of the
defendants but not as against the rest the court will discharge the defendant against whom no

1
Salem advocate bar asscn.v UOI (2002) 6 ALD34(SC):2002(4)ICC(SC)421
2
Mohan v. Damodar(1994)2 SCC 392
3
Janakirama Iyer v. Nilakanta Iyer AIR 1962 SC 633, 638
4
Narendra v. Sukumar AIR1994 All 1
5
Vedapalli v. Poosaria(1980)1 AndhLT 488
Page |6

cause of action is disclosed and have the name struck off from the plaint. But a plaint which does
not disclose a cause of action in respect of the part of the claim against some of the defendants
cannot be rejected as a whole6

ABANDONMENT OF PART OF CLAIM—

Part of claim may be abandoned to save court-fee7

6
Balwant v SBI AIR 1976 Punj 316; Meera v Rajendranath AIR 1994 MP 18 (para 8)
7
Chhatulal v Panchanan AIR 1953 Cal 755 :57 Cal WN563; See Ram Gopal v Bhikari Ganda AIR 1959 Ori 16;
Nemichand v Edward Mills Co AIR 1953 SC 28
Page |7

ORDER 7 RULE 11

Court may reject a plaint under Or 7 r.11 at any stage of the suit. Under Or 7 r.11 court should
shot down a bogus and vexatious litigation on examining the party at the first hearing. In
vexatious litigation deterrent step should also be taken under sec 35A. if a suit is barred by any
law the plaint has to be rejected under Or 7 r.11(d). it cannot be returned under Or 7,r.10. Prayer
for declaration that a contract is void and alternatively for specific performance of contract is not
maintainable.

Where mere non-supply of goods does not amount to fraud, mere repetition of the word ‘fraud’
in plaint not sufficient to disclose cause of action. Plaint filed by bank liable to be rejected.

It is courts duty to reject plaint for non-disclosure of cause of action irrespective of objection
being raised by defendant.

Court competent to reject plaint at any stage if conditions under r.11 exist; application by party
not necessary.

Power of dismissal of suit on ground of absence of cause of action to be exercised by courts


sparingly and cautiously giving benefit of doubt to plaintiff .

Plaint in suit for permanent injection restraining defendants from using cheques issued to them,
filed after filing of criminal case under section 138 of N.I Act against plaintiff, liable to be
rejected.

Duty cast on court entertaining a plaint to look into averments of plaint whether cause of action
saves limitation or not.

Plaint on facts stated and documents produced, disclosing cause of action; dismissal of
application for rejection of plaint proper.

Partial rejection of plaint not permissible.

Order rejecting plaint, though ingredient of Or.7, r.11 not satisfied, liable to be set aside.

Power under Or.7 r.11 can be invoked in proceedings for grant of letters of administration.
Page |8

Basis of cause of action alleged in suit could be gathered on a conjoint reading of all paragraphs
of plaint.

When no cause of action made out in petition for declaration of marriage as void, dismissal of
petition at threshold itself proper.

Subsequent suit on same cause of action not barred where earlier plaint rejected under r.11.

If inherent powers cannot be invoked against order rejecting plaint, remedy lies in filing an
appeal.

REJECTION OF PLAINT: HOW TO DECIDE-

On a bare reading of paint , perusal of admitted documents and facts coming out in the statement
of the plaintiff under Or 10 court may find that the case is not maintainable or is barred by
limitation or does not disclose cause of action.

REFUSAL TO REJECT PLAINT- Order, if appealable—

Order refusing to reject plaint for non-disclosure a cause of action. It is appealable under clause
15 of Letters Patent as the impugned order is judgment within the meaning of the said clause8
held not be good law in view of the decision of the Apex Court in9

PLAINT BARRED BY ANY LAW: Clause(d)—

Plaint is liable to be rejected under Or. 7,r.11 (d) for non-service of notice under sec. 76 of the
Co-operative Societies Act10

8
M.V Sea Success I v L&L S.P. & Indemnity Assocn. Ltd. AIR 2002 (Bom) 151(DB); AIR 1926 Bom 136
9
Shah Babulal Khimji v Jayaben AIR 1981 SC 1786
10
Harijan Co-operative v Maghu AIR 1992 HP 34
Page |9

PROCEDURE ON REJECTING PLAINT—

Where a plaint is rejected the judge shall record an order to that effect with the reasons for such
order.

WHERE REJECTION OF PLAINT DOES NOT PRECLUDE PRESENTATION OF FRESH PLAINT—

The rejection of the plaint on any of the grounds hereinbefore mentioned shall not of its own
force preclude the plaintiff from presenting a fresh plaint in respect of the same cause of action.
P a g e | 10

GROUNDS FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT

Text of order 7 Rule 11 of CPC

(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 require by the court to supply the requisite stamp-paper
within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so;

(d) Where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.

 REJECTION OF PLAINT FOR NON- DISCLOSURE OF CAUSE OF ACTION—

If the plaint filed by the plaintiff does not disclose any cause of action, the court will reject it.
But in order to reject the plaint on this ground, the court must look at the plaint and at nothing
else.11

The power to reject a plaint on this ground should be exercise only if the court comes to the
conclusion that even if all the allegations set out in the plaint are proved, the plaintiff would not
be entitled to any relief. In that case, the court will reject the plaint without issuing summons to
the defendants. The reading of the plaint should be meaningful and not formal .12But where the
plaint does not disclose a cause of action, clever drafting, ritual of repeating words or creation of
an illusion cannot insert a cause of action in a plaint.

11
Abdulla Bin Ali v. Galappa,(1985) 2 SCC 54:AIR 1985 SC 577; Commercial Aviation& Travel Co. v.Vimala
Pannalal,(1988) 3 SCC 423: AIR 1988 SC 1636; Begam Sahiba v. Nawab Mohd. Mansur, (2007) 4 SCC 343
12
T.Arivandanam v. T.V.Satyapal,(1977) 4 SCC 467 at p.470.
P a g e | 11

Again, there is a difference between a plea that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action and
a plea that there is no cause of action for instituting a suit. For determining whether the plaint
discloses the cause of action or not, averments in the plaint alone are relevant and material.13

Finally, the plaint can be rejected as a whole if it does not disclose the cause of action. A part of
it cannot be rejected.14

 WHERE RELIEF CLAIMED IS UNDERVALUED--

Where the relief claimed by the plaintiff is undervalued and the valuation is not corrected within
the time fixed or extended by the court, the plaint will be rejected.

In considering the question whether the suit is properly valued or not, the court must confine its
attention to the plaint only and should not look at the other circumstances which may
subsequently influence the judgment of the court as to the true value of the relief prayed for.15

 WHERE PLAINT IS INSUFFICIENTLY STAMPED--

Sometimes the relief claimed by the plaintiff is popularly valued, but the plaint is written upon a
paper insufficiently stamped and the plaintiff fails to pay the requisite court fees within the time
fixed or extended by the court. In that case, the plaint will be rejected. However, if the requisite
court fee is paid within the time extended by the court, the suit or appeal must be treated as
instituted from the date of presentation of plaint or memorandum of appeal for the purpose of
limitation as well as payment of court fee.16

13
I.T.C Ltd v. DebtsRecovery Appellate Tribunal, (1988) 2 SCC70: AIR 1998SC 634; Church of North India v.
Lavajibhai, (2005) 10 SCC 760: AIR 2005 SC 2544; Hardesh Ores(P)Ltd.v. Hede and Co.,(2007)5 SCC614
14
State of Orissa v. Klockner and Co.,(1996)8SCC 377:AIR 1996 SC 2140; Raptakos Brett and Co. v.Ganesh
Proprty,(1998)7 SCC184:AIR1998 SC 3085; Begam Sahiba v. Nawab Mohd. Mansur,(2007) 4 SCC 343
15
Meenakshisundaram v. Venkatachalam,(1980) 1 SCC 616: AIR 1979 SC 989; Tara Devi v. Sri Thakur Radha
Krishna Maharaj,(1987) 4 SCC 69:AIR 1987 SC2085.
16
Mannan lal v. Chhotaka Bibi,(1970) 1 SCC 769 at pp. 776-77: AIR 1971 SC 1374
P a g e | 12

If the plaintiff cannot pay the court fees, he may apply to continue the suit as an indigent
person.17

 WHERE SUIT IS BARRED BY LAW--

Where the suit appears from the statements in the plaint to be barred by any law, the court will
reject the plaint.

For instance, where in a suit against the government, the plaint does not state that a” notice “as
required by section 80 of the code has been given, the plaint will be rejected under this
clause.18But where waiver of such notice is pleaded, the court cannot reject the plaint without
giving the plaintiff an opportunity to establish that fact.19Likewise, if the plaint itself shows that
the claim is barred by limitation, the plaint can be rejected.20 But if the question of limitation is
connected with the merits of the case, the matter requires to be decided along with other issues.21

 WHERE PLAINT IS NOT IN DUPLICATE--

The plaint has to be filed in duplicate.22If the said requirement is not complied with the plaint
will be rejected23

17
Order 33
18
Bhagchand v. Secy. Of State,(1926-27)54 IA 338: AIR 1927 PC 176; Beohar Rajendra Sinha v. State of
M.P.,(1969)1 SCC 796: AIR 1969 SC 1256; Tej Kiran v. Sanjiva Reddy,(1970)2 SCC 272 :AIR 1970 SC 1573

19
B.L.Chopra v. Punjab State, AIR 1961 Punj150;Lakshmi Narain v. Union of India, AIR 1962 Pat 64; Beohar
Rajendra Sinha v. State of M.P.,(1969) 1 SCC 796: AIR 1969 SC1256; Tej Kiran v. N. Sanjiva Reddy,(1970) 2 SCC
272: AIR 1970 SC 1573 ; Ebrahimbhai v. State of Maharastra, AIR1975 Bom13
20
Gangappa Gurupadappa v. Rahawwa,(1970) 3 SCC716 : AIR1971 SC 442
21
Arjan Singh v. UOI,AIR 1987 Del165
22
Or.4,R.1(1).
23
Or 7,R11(e)
P a g e | 13

 WHERE THERE IS NON- COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY PROVISIONS--

Where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9, the plaint will be rejected.24

 OTHER GROUNDS--

The grounds for rejection of plaint specified in Rule 11 of Order 7 are not exhaustible. On other
relevant grounds also a plaint can be rejected. Thus if the plaint is signed by a person not
authorized by the plaintiff and the defect is not curved within the time granted by the court, the
plaint can be rejected.25

MODES OF REJECTING PLAINT--

A plaint may be rejected either by

(i) An application of the defendant

(ii) Suo motu by the court if it is liable to be rejected under order 7 Rule 11.26

24
Or 7, R. 11(f)
25
Radakishen v. Wali Mohammed, (1977) 4 SCC 467: AIR 1977 SC 2421; Mayor H.K. Ltd. V. Owners and Parties,
Vessel M.V. Fortune Express ,(2006)3 SCC 100:AIR 2006 SC 1828.
26
https://www.scribd.com/document/328489308/Order-VII-Rule-11-CPC-Rejection-of-Plaint last seen on
09November2017 at 1:24 pm
P a g e | 14

DISMISSAL AND REJECTION

Dismissal of a suit and rejection of plaint are not identical terms. In one case a decree is passed;
in the other it is merely an appealable order27, but dismissed for non-payment of court-fee
amounts to rejection.28 Rejection does not preclude a fresh suit (O.7, R 13). Court coming to
conclusion that paint could not be rejected could dismiss the suit either on merits on plaintiff’s
application for withdrawal without permission to bring a fresh suit.29 Plea that there was no cause
of action to file suit can be raised even before filing of written statement.30

A plaint may be rejected at any stage, eg before registration,31or even after registration or
remand. Rejection of plaint is not restricted to any particular stage of the suit, Court may
examine plaint before admitting it or at any time thereafter, or after completion of trial but before
judgment. Dismissal of plaint under S.8B(3) , C F Act (Beng) is not rejection. Rejection of plaint
is a decree.

The words “rejecting the plaint” are not limited to the cases provided for in Or.7, r.11.32 Or7,
r.11 does not refer to plaint bearing no stamp. Such plaint shall be rejected under Ss 4 and 6
Court-Fees Act.

Since orders granting temporary injunction do not aid and supplement the ultimate decision of
the suits, they cannot said to be ancillary orders and such orders would not stand revived on the
order of rejection of plaint getting set aside in the appellate court.

27
Bhajja v Md, A1932 A543
28
Shamrao v Amolak, A 1949 N 373; Annapurna v. sarat,A 1935 C 157
29
Tekchand v Danno, A 1983 P&H 199
30
State Bank of India v. Somnath Sahoo, 1999 AIHC 3493, 3495(Ori)
31
Sarat v. Mritunjay, 62 C 61
32
Beni v. Ram 13C189
P a g e | 15

APPEAL

An order rejecting a plaint is a decree under section 2(2), and appealable as such. An order
rejecting a plaint was said in an Allahabad case to be an appealable order. This must be per
incuriam, for it is not one of the orders enumerated in O. 43. However, the Andhra Pradesh High
Court has expressed contrary opinion on this point. It was held that no appeal under O.43,r.1 is
maintainable against an order rejecting the plaint under O.7,r.11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
It was observed that O.43 specifically provides for appeal only against an order returning a
plaint. On the plea that rejection of a plaint can be treated as a deemed decree, the court further
observed that the distinction between decree and deemed decree was not permissible.33

Where a plaint is rejected under cl(b), the order rejecting the plaint is not appealable when the
order is based on the question of valuation pure and simple. However, if the order necessarily
involves a decision of the category or class under which a suit falls, even though it incidentally
decides a question of valuation, the order is appealable. These decisions turn on s.12 of the Court
Fees Act 1870. An order dismissing a suit for non-payment of the court-fee adjudged under
s8B(3) of the Court Fees Act(Bengal Amendment), amounts to an order for rejection within this
rule and is appealable.

Rule 11 does not apply to an appellate court that has similar powers under s 107. However the
Kerala High Court also made the provisions of O.7,R.11 applicable to appeals.

Where an order rejecting a plaint is set aside and the case is remanded, the temporary injunction
issued by the trial court is not automatically removed. Only ancillary orders are revived, that is,
orders which supplement and aid the ultimate decision to be arrived at.

REVISION

The chief court of the Punjab had held that an order directing a plaintiff to pay an additional
court-fee is not open to revision as the plaintiff will have his remedy by way of appeal from the
consequential order rejecting the plaint. The same view is taken in the undernoted cases. On the
other hand, it has been held that the demand of an improper court-fee is a refusal to exercise
jurisdiction to try the case and is, therefore, open to injury to the plaintiff. An order as to the

33
Sompalli Venkatarathnam v. Kilari lingaiah AIR 2005 NOC 154(2004)AIHC 4755
P a g e | 16

court-fee which is favourable to the plaintiff is not open to revision. However an order rejecting
a plaint in view of s4(b), Bihar Conosolidation of Holding Act 1956, which bars civil suits in
respect of certain land, is a ‘decree’ and, therefore, appealable. Revision is competent against the
order. The Madras High Court has also held that an order rejecting the plaint is appealable and
no revision would lie against the order.

REVIEW

An order rejecting a plaint under cl(c) of s 45 is open to review. So also, in a proper case, an
order rejecting a plaint under cl(b) of the section.

IRREGULAR ORDER OF REJECTION

Where a plaint was returned for clarifying how it disclosed a cause of action and was dismissed
for failure so to clarify, it was held that the order for rejection was not warranted by r11 and,
hence, irregular. There was no finding that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action and an
application for restoration of the suit was therefore, competent.

HIGH COURT AMENDMENTS

ANDHRA PRADESH and MADRAS –for cl(c) substitute the following

(c) Where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written on paper ‘ insufficiently
stamped’, and the plaintiff does not make good the deficiency within the time, if any, granted by
the court.

CALCUTTA, GAUHATI and ORISSA—Add the following as clause (e)

(e) Where any of the provisions of r 9(1A) is not complied with and the plaintiff on being
required by the court to comply therewith within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so.
P a g e | 17

KARNATAKA— Same as in Madras with substitution of the words ‘ but the plaint is written on
paper insufficiently stamped’ by the words ‘ but the court –fee actually paid is insufficiently’.

IMPORTANT AND LATEST JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT AND


HIGH COURT:

 Saleem Bhai Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2003 SC 756,

It has been held that the application for rejection of plaintiff has to be decided based on
averment in the plaint and the pleas taken by the defendant are wholly irrelevant at that stage and
directing the defendant to file written statement without deciding an application under Order 7
Rule 11 is procedural irregularity touching the exercise of jurisdiction in the court.

 Ramachandran v/s R.V. Janakiraman (AIR1999 SC 1128).

“It is elementary that under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) Civil Procedure Code, the court cannot dissect
the pleading into several parts and consider whether each one of them discloses a cause of action.
Under the Rule, there cannot be a partial rejection of the plaint or petition.”

 Popat and Kotecha Property v/s. State Bank of India Staff Association 2005 (7) SCC 510
: 2005 (6) Supreme 7 : 2005 (12) JT 302 : 2005 (7) Scale 3.

“Clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII applies in those cases only where the statement made by the
plaintiff in the plaint, without any doubt or dispute shows that the suit is barred by any law in
force. It is further held, there cannot be any compartmentalization, dissection, segregation and
inversions of the language of various paragraphs in the plaint. If such a course is adopted it
would run counter to the cardinal canon of interpretation according to which a pleading has to be
read as whole to ascertain its true import. It is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage
and to read it out of the context in isolation. Although it is the substance and not merely the form
that has to be looked into, the pleading has to be construed as it stands without addition or
subtraction of words or change of its apparent grammatical sense. The intention of the party
concerned is to be gathered primarily from the tenor and terms of his pleadings taken as a whole.
At the same time it should be borne in mind that no pedantic approach should be adopted to
defeat justice on hair splitting technicalities. It is not a case where the suit from statement in the
P a g e | 18

plaint can be said to be barred by law. The statement in the plaint without addition or subtraction
must show that is barred by any law to attract application of Order VII Rule 11”.

 Sopan Sable Vs. Asst Charity Commissioner [(2004) 3 SCC 137]

It is held that the real object of Order 7 Rule 11 is to keep out of Courts, irresponsible law suits.
For the purpose of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Order 7 Rule 11, the
averments in the Plaint are germane. In exercise of its jurisdiction under Order 7 Rule 11 what is
required is a meaningful and not a formal reading of the Plaint and clever drafting which creates
an illusion of a cause of action ought not to detract from the jurisdiction of the Court on an
application for rejection.

 T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal [AIR 1977 SC 2421],

It has been held that if on a meaningful reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious and
merit-less in a sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the trial court should exercise its power
under order 7 Rule 11.

 Premlata Nahata Vs. Chanti Prasad Sikaria, AIR 2007 SC 1247

It has been held that defect of mis-joinder of parties and causes of action is not a ground for
rejection of plaint.

 M. V. Sea Success Vs. Riverpool and Landon Steamship Projection and Indemnity
Association Ltd., AIR 2002 Bombay 151

Court held that plaint can be rejected against some of the defendants.

 Commercial Aviation and Travel Company and others vs. Vinola Pawallkan ( AIR 1988
SC1636).

“Order VII, Rule 11(b) contemplates correct valuation and not approximate correct valuation and
such correct valuation of the relief has to be determined by the Court. If the Court cannot
determine the correct valuation of the relief claimed, it cannot require the plaintiff to correct the
valuation and, consequently, Order VII, Rule 11(b) will not be applicable. But, there may be
cases under Section 7(iv) where certain positive objective standard may be available for the
purpose of determination of the valuation of the relief. If there be materials or objective
P a g e | 19

standards for the valuation of the relief, and yet the plaintiff ignores the same and puts an
arbitrary valuation, the Court, in our opinion, is entitled to interfere under Order VII, Rule 11(b)
of the Code of Civil Procedure, for the Court will be in a position to determine the correct
valuation with reference to the objective standards or materials available to it”.

 Jageshwari Devi and others Vs. Satrugan Ram, (2007) SCC 52

It has been held that non disclosure of cause of action is distinct from defective cause of action.

 I.T.C. Ltd. Vs. Tax Recovery Appellate Tribunal and others, AIR 1998 SC 634

apex court held that even after framing issues plaint can be rejected.

 Pratibha Singh V/s Shanti Devi Prasad reported in 2002 (8) Supreme 553,

on the proposition that the defects in identifying the suit property can be cured without
dismissing the case or rejecting the plaint. The plaint cannot be rejected outright under Order 7
Rule 11 of CPC for not producing any sketch or map showing the structures and the party should
be given an opportunity to produce such sketch or plan at the stage of production and inspection
of documents and trial.

 Shri Naru B. Shetkar vs Vishram Jaya Shetkar Alias Manohar Jaya Shetkar And Ors.
(1999) 101 BOMLR 544.

On plain reading of the said provision of law, it is apparent that the powers thereunder can be
exercised only by taking into consideration the pleadings in the plaint. There can be no doubt
that when plaintiff sues upon a document in his possession or power, he is bound to produce a
true copy of such document along with the plaint. Such a copy of the document would, therefore,
be a part of the plaint filed by the party and, therefore, the contents of such a document would
naturally form part of the pleadings in the plaint. Therefore, in such cases the Court may in
exercise of the powers under Order VII, Rule 11 take into consideration the contents of such a
document since the document forms part of the pleadings
P a g e | 20

CONCLUSION

I include that for purpose of determination whether plaint discloses a cause of action or

not, court has to presence that every-averment made in the plaint is true, power to reject a plaint

under order 7 Rule 11 must be exercised only if the court comes to conclusion that even if all the

allegations made in the plaint are proved, plaintiff would not be entitled to any relief what so

ever.

The provision contained in Order VII Rule 11 are mandatory and the court has no discretion to

reject the plaint once contigencies specified in the provision occur. Before rejecting the plaint,

opportunity should be given to the plaintiff to remove the ground of objection wherever possible

to do so.
P a g e | 21

BIBLIOGRAPHY

NANDI A.K AND NANDY SANGHAMITRA, The Code of Civil Procedure 2nd ed, Kamal
Law House,2006

GUPTA SEN S.P, Code of Civil Procedure, 3rd ed, Kamal Law House,2006

BASU, The Code of Civil Procedure, 2nd ed, Ashoka Law House 2007

SARKAR, Code of Civil Procedure, lexis Nexis, Vol 2

SAHA A.N, The Code of Civil Procedure,Vol-1,Premier Publishing Co. 2010

MULLA, The Code of Civil Procedure 17th ed,Vol-II ,lexis Nexis

https://www.scribd.com/document/328489308/Order-VII-Rule-11-CPC-Rejection-of-Plaint last
seen on 09November2017 at 1:24 pm