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 –

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.

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 the 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.