1

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA,

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,
LUCKNOW, 2020

Final Draft of Drafting of Pleadings and Conveyancing

TOPIC-“Rejection of Plaint”

CLASS: B.A.LL.B. (HONS), VIth SEMESTER

SUBMITTED TO SUBMITTED BY

DR.SHAKUNTLA SANGAM SURYA PRAKASH MISHRA

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR ENROLLMENT NO.170101147

SECTION: B
 2

Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 3

Rejection of Plaint – Order VII, Rule 11 ................................................................................... 3

Consideration of pleadings: ....................................................................................................... 5

Written statement of Defendant is irrelevant: ............................................................................ 5

Meaningful Reading is Necessary ............................................................................................. 5

Whether a Plaint discloses a Cause of Action is a Question of Fact! ........................................ 6

Stage at which Court may reject the Plaint ................................................................................ 6

Disclosure of Some Cause of Action is Adequate – Chances of Success Immaterial ............... 6

Order VII, Rule 11 – A tool to reject vexatious or frivolous litigation ..................................... 7

When suit can be dismissed for want of jurisdiction? ............. Error! Bookmark not defined.

When Court cannot reject the Plaint under Order VII, Rule 11................................................. 9

Draft Application for Rejection of Plaint................................................................................. 10

Can Court reject the Plaint against one or more Defendants? ................................................. 11

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 12

Bibliography ............................................................................................................................ 12
 3

INTRODUCTION

A plaint is nothing but a petition or complaint containing the allegations of the Plaintiff who
may be aggrieved due to acts of omission or commission or civil wrongs of persons known as
Defendants. The acts of omission or commission or the civil wrongs constitute the cause for
the legal action commenced by the Plaintiff. Only if the Plaintiff is able to prove those facts,
the Court could grant relief(s) and render justice. Where the case involves allegations
misrepresentation, fraud, wilful default, coercion, undue influence or any other allegations of
the same nature, the pleadings have to be very specific. In a civil suit, through a Plaint, the
Plaintiff invokes the jurisdiction of the Court and seeks relief(s) and remedies in accordance
with law. A civil suit is based on the doctrine “Where there is a right; there is a remedy”.

In this project, the researcher intends to point out that the Court has powers to reject a Plaint
on certain grounds without even considering the defence that may be set up by the
Defendants. It is in fact a duty of the Court to determine certain preliminary things under
Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code [CPC]. Under this Rule, the Court, for
illustration, would see if the Plaint discloses a cause of action or if the matter is barred by any
provision of law. The power under Order VII, Rule 11 can be exercised only by taking into
consideration the pleadings in the plaint including the documents which form part of such
pleadings.

REJECTION OF PLAINT – ORDER VII, RULE 11

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

(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;

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

(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper
insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to supply the
requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
 4

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

(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;

(f) where the plaintiff fails comply with the provision of Rule 9.

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

A civil action called civil suit commences with filing of a petition called plaint. Rejection of
the plaint under Order VII rule 11 of the CPC is a drastic power conferred in the court to
terminate a civil action at the threshold. The conditions precedent to the exercise of power
under Order VII rule 11, therefore, are stringent and have been consistently held to be so by
the Courts.

While civil courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature except those suits which
are either expressly or impliedly barred by any law for the time being in force, civil courts
have powers to avoid a suit by rejection of a Plaint which is manifestly vexatious and
meritless or when it is expressly or impliedly barred. It is incumbent of the Court to study the
Plaint and decide if there exists any one or more of the several grounds specified in Order
VII, Rule 11 of CPC. One of the grounds for such mandatory rejection of plaint is when the
Plaint does not disclose a cause of action. Another ground is where the suit appears from the
statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.

The Court must scan and scrutinize the allegations made in the plaint to find out whether
forensic cleverness while drafting the plaint has been employed to get out of clutches of
Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. and if on a careful scan and scrutiny of the pleading the conclusion of
the Court is in affirmative, the consequence of rejection of plaint must follow.
 5

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT IS IRRELEVANT:

Reading the plaint as a whole and proceeding on the basis that the averments made therein
are correct, which is what the Court is required to do, it cannot be said that the said pleadings
ex facie discloses that the suit is barred by limitation or is barred under any other provision of
law. The claim of the plaintiffs with regard to the knowledge of the essential facts giving rise
to the cause of action as pleaded will have to be accepted as correct. At the stage of
consideration of the application under Order VII rule 11 the stand of the defendants in the
written statement would be altogether irrelevant.

CONSIDERATION OF PLEADINGS:

It is the averments in the plaint that has to be read as a whole to find out whether it discloses
a cause of action or whether the suit is barred under any law. At the stage of exercise of
power under Order VII rule 11, the stand of the defendants in the written statement or in the
application for rejection of the plaint is wholly immaterial. It is only if the averments in the
plaint ex facie do not disclose a cause of action or on a reading thereof the suit appears to be
barred under any law the plaint can be rejected. In all other situations, the claims will have to
be adjudicated in the course of the trial.

MEANINGFUL READING IS NECESSARY

The trial court must remember that if on a meaningful- no formal - reading of the plaint is
manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, it should
exercise its power under Order VII, Rule 11CPC taking care to see that the ground mentioned
therein is fulfilled1.

The question is whether a real cause of action has been set out in the plaint or something
purely illusory has been stated with a view to get out of Order VII, Rule 11 CPC. Clever
drafting creating illusions of cause of action are not permitted in law and a clear right to sue
should be shown in the plaint2.

1
T. Arivandandam v T.V. Satyapal and Anr. AIR1977SC2421.
2
Ibid.
 6

WHETHER A PLAINT DISCLOSES A CAUSE OF ACTION IS A

QUESTION OF FACT!

The Court has to read the entire plaint as a whole to find out whether it discloses a cause of
action and if it does, then the plaint cannot be rejected by the court exercising the power
under Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC. Essentially, whether the plaint discloses a cause of action
is a question of fact which has to be gathered on the basis of the averments made in the plaint
in its entirety taking those averments to be correct3.

STAGE AT WHICH COURT MAY REJECT THE PLAINT

A perusal of Order VII, Rule 11 CPC makes it clear that the relevant facts which need to be
looked into for deciding an application there under are the averments in the plaint. The trial
court can exercise the power under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC at any stage of the suit - before
registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before the
conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of deciding an application under Clauses (a) and (d)
of Rule 11 of Order VII C.P.C., the averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by
the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage4.

The Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC does not place any restriction or limitation on the exercise of
court’s power; it does not either expressly or by necessary implication provide that power
under Order VII, Rule11 should be exercised at a particular stage only. In the absence of any
restriction placed by the statutory provision, it is open to the court to exercise that power at
any stage5.

DISCLOSURE OF SOME CAUSE OF ACTION IS ADEQUATE –

CHANCES OF SUCCESS IMMATERIAL

If some cause of action is disclosed, a pleading cannot be struck out merely because the case
is weak and not likely to succeed6.

3
Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. and Ors. v Owners & Parties Vessel MV Fortune Express and Ors 2006 (3) SCC 100
4
SaleemBhai and Orsv State of Maharashtra and Ors AIR2003SC759.
5
Samar Singh v. KedarNathAIR1987SC1926.
6
Mohan Rawale v DamodarTatyaba (1994)2SCC392.
 7

So long as the plaint discloses some cause of action which requires determination by the
court, the mere fact that in the opinion of the Judge the plaintiff may not succeed cannot be a
ground for rejection of the plaint.

ORDER VII, RULE 11 – A TOOL TO REJECT VEXATIOUS OR

FRIVOLOUS LITIGATION

What is to be determined by the Court at the stage of deciding as to whether the plaint
discloses any cause of action or not, is to find out from the allegations of the plaint itself as to
whether a bogus, wholly vexatious or frivolous litigation was sought to be initiated under the
garb of ingenious drafting of the plaint and to guard against the mischief of a litigant
misusing the process of the Court, by entering into a false litigation, merely for the purposes
of harassing the other party and obtaining undue advantage of the process of the Court by
adopting tactics and in starting sham and shady actions7.

Illustration 1 – Rejection of Plaint – Failure to Disclose Cause of Action

The averments of the appellants in the election petition do not disclose any definite cause of
action.

As observed by the High Court, the main concern of the appellant in effect is the addition of
the 21 colonies into the Meerut constituency and not in relation to addition or deletion of
names in the electoral roll. But yet there has been no specific pleading in this regard in the
election petition. The pleading should have been with respect to the said inclusion of the 21
colonies into the Meerut municipality ward which was later incorporated into the 381 Meerut
Assembly constituency. In the absence of such pleadings, it can safely be said that the
election petition does not disclose any material facts and, therefore, High Court was right in
summarily dismissing the election petition8.

Illustration 2 – Rejection of Plaint – Suit barred by Time

The cause of action for seeking a declaration that the registered sale deed dated 5.5.1953 to
be a loan transaction and second relief of Specific Performance of oral agreement of re-
conveyance of the property by registered instrument, according to the plaintiff's own
7
Rajasthan High Court in Ranjeet Mal v Poonam Chand and another MANU/RH/0001/1983
8
Laxmi Kant Bajpai v HaziYaqoob and Ors.(2010)4SCC81.
 8

averments in Paragraph 9 of the Plaint, arose on 25.3.1987 when the plaintiffs claimed to
have paid back the entire loan amount and obtained a promise from the defendants to re
convey the property. Reckoning the cause of action from 25.3.1987, the suit filed on
26.8.1996, was hopelessly barred by time. Therefore Supreme Court held that the present
Plaint is liable to rejection, if not on the ground that it does not disclose 'cause of action', on
the ground that the suit is apparently barred by law within the meaning of clause (d) of Order
VII, Rule 11 of CPC. The Supreme Court held that the suit framed is prima facie barred by
the law of limitation, provisions of Specific Relief Act as also under Order 2 Rule 2 of the
Code of Civil Procedure9.

Illustration 3 – Rejection of Plaint – Suit barred by Law

Rejection of the Plaint on the ground that the licence which was terminated was revocable as
per the terms of licence. Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 categorically provides
that the contracts of the nature provided therein cannot be specifically enforced namely a
contract which in its nature is determinable. In that case, the said contract was in the nature of
a licence which is always revocable as licensee has no right or any interest and the licence is
simply permission and the person granting the permission has every right to revoke the
permission so granted. Therefore, in such cases of revocation of permission, the only remedy
available is to sue for damages and not for the enforcement of the licence or the contract10

Considering the termination ofthe distributorship of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd vis-à-vis
the provisions of Section 14(1) (c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 held granting the relief
ofrestoration of the distributorship even on the finding that the breach committed by the
Corporation is contrary to the mandate of Section 14(1)(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963
and held that the restoration of the distributorship was not sustainable in law. It further added
that in such a situation, the agreement being revocable, the only relief which could be granted
was the award of compensation11.

In P.V. Guru Raj Reddy v P. Neeradha Reddy12, court held

Both the suits were filed in July 2002 which is well within three years of the date of
knowledge, as claimed by the plaintiffs, of the fact that the property had not been transferred

9
N.V. Srinivasa Murthy and Ors.vMariyamma(dead) by Proposed LRs and Ors AIR2005SC2897.
10
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd v Khaybar Transport Pvt Ltd. MANU/UP/1185/2011.
11
Amritsar Gas Service MANU/SC/0513/1991 / (1991)1 SCC 533.
12
AIR SC 2015.
 9

in the name of plaintiff No.2 by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The aforesaid averments made
in the plaint will have to be accepted as correct for the purposes of consideration of the
application under Order VII rule 11 filed by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2. If that be so, the
averments in the plaint would not disclose that either of the suits is barred by limitation so as
to justify rejection of the plaint under Order VII rule 11 of the CPC.

WHEN COURT CANNOT REJECT THE PLAINT UNDER ORDER VII,

RULE 11

There is a clear distinction between a case where the plaint itself does not disclose any cause
of action and a case in which, after the parties have produced oral and documentary evidence,
the Court, on consideration of the entire material on record, comes to the conclusion that
there was no cause of action for the suit. In the latter case, obviously, the plaint cannot be
rejected under Order VII, Rule 1113.

13
Jagannath Prasad and OrsvChandrawati and AnrAIR1970All309.
 10

DRAFT APPLICATION FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT

In the City Civil Court at Allahabad

Civil Suit No. 100 of 2006

Rajnikant Ramprasad Pandya, Hindu, Adult….Plaintiff; aged about 50 years, residing at 15

Paradise Park, Usmanpura, Ahmedabd

Versus

Ramanbhai Mohanbhai Patel, Hindu Adult, aged….Defendant; about 37 years, residing at 65,
Patidar Society, Paldi, Ahmedabad

The defendant above named humbly states as under:

1. That by an agreement in writing, dated 1st January 2001, signed by the defendant, the
defendant contracted to sell the plaintiff his bungalow referred to in the said
agreement (hereinafter referred to as “the suit property”) for Rs. 10,00000.
2. That the plaintiff hasn’t paid any part of the consideration to the defendant.
3. The plaintiff has filed the above suit against the defendant for specific performance of
the contract.
4. That the present suit is barred by time as the contract for sale as entered in 2002 and
the suit was filed in 2006.
5. That the period of limitation in such cases in years
6. The defendant, therefore prays,
That Civil Suit No. 100 of 2006 is liable to be dismissed under Order VII, Rule 11.

ABC
………….. Defendant
Defendant’s Advocate

Affidavit

I, Ramanbhai Mohanbhai Patel, the defendant above named do solely declare that what is
stated in paras 1 and 2 is true to my knowledge.

Defendant
 11

CAN COURT REJECT THE PLAINT AGAINST ONE OR MORE

DEFENDANTS?

There is no bar in invoking the powers of the court under Order VII Rule 11 for rejecting the
Plaint against one or some of the Defendants only if the Plaint does not disclose any cause of
action against that or those Defendants.

Rejecting the Plaint against one of the defendants, held that as the plaint does not disclose a
cause of action against the Defendant No. 1 vessel, in its entirety it deserves to be rejected
against the defendant No. 1, vessel Sea Success-I14.

14
ITC Limited v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal & others AIR1998SC634.
 12

CONCLUSION

I say, 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
an" relief whatsoever.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The researcher is indebted to the following sources for information:

Primary Source:

➢ R.D Srivastava, The Law of Pleading Drafting and Conveyancing, 2011

➢ The Transfer of Property Law by Dr.PoonamPradhanSaxena Lexis Nexis Publication

➢ Civil Procedure (CPC) with Limitation Act, 1963 by Justice C.K.Takwani (Thakker)
Eastern Book Company

Web Source:

➢ Manupatra
➢ Scconline