Necessary Contents of A Plaint

A plaint is a legal document that contains a lot of necessary contents in the absence of which, it
cannot be considered as a plaint. The contents necessary for a plaint are mentioned in Rules 1 to 8 of
Order VII of CPC. These are mentioned below:

 Plaint should contain the name of the commercial or civil court where a suit will be initiated.
 Plaint should contain details of the plaintiff such as the name, address, and description.

 Plaint should contain the name, residence, and description of the defendant.

 When a plaintiff has some defects or problems in health or any type of disability, the Plaint
should contain a statement of these effects.

 Plaint should contain the facts due to which cause of action arises and where the cause of
action arises it should also be mentioned.

 Plaint should not only mention facts due to which cause of action arises but also those facts
which help in recognizing the jurisdiction.

 Plaint should also contain about that relief which the plaintiff seeks from the court.

 When the plaintiff is ready to set off a portion of his claim, the Plaint should contain that
amount which has been so allowed.

 Plaint should contain a statement of the value of the subject-matter of suit not only for the
purpose of jurisdiction but also for the purpose of court-fees.

 At last, the content that should be on plaint is the plaintiff verification on oath.

This shows that the plaint is a necessary component for the successful initiation of suits in commercial
or civil courts and plays a very important role throughout the suit. Some additional particulars which
were not mentioned above include the following: Plaintiff shall state the exact amount of money to be
obtained from the defendant as given under Rule 2 of order VII whereas Rule 3 of order VII of CPC
states that when the plaint contains subject matter of immovable property, then the property must be
duly described.

Rejection of plaint
The Plaint shall be rejected in certain situations when requirements are not fulfilled. Some of the
situations in which the plaint is rejected are as follows:

 The plaint is rejected in a case where the cause of action is not disclosed. If the cause of
action is not disclosed then it is not possible to prove the damage caused to the plaintiff. To
seek relief against the defendant, the facts need to be mentioned clearly. In the case of Snp
Shipping Service Pvt. Ltd. v. World Tanker Carrier Corporation, the plaint was rejected and
the suit dismissed under Order 7, Rule 1(a) of the C.P.C.,1908.
 The plaint is also rejected in a case where the plaintiff relief is undervalued and the plaintiff is
requested by the court to correct the valuation within the given time frame but the plaintiff
fails to do so.

 The plaint is rejected in a case where all the documents are not properly stamped and the
plaintiff on being required by the court to supply the required stamp paper within a time to
be fixed by court fails to do so.
  The plaint is mostly rejected due to the statement mentioned in the plaint secured by any law
or statute that doesn’t give any right to the plaintiff to file the suit.

 When a duplicate copy of the plaint is not submitted whereas it is mentioned that it is
mandatory to submit the duplicate copy then in that condition plaint is liable to be
dismissed.

 The plaint is rejected when the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9 of Order
VII of C.P.C.

Provisions on the Rejection of Plaint under C.P.C.

As we have already said in what circumstances the plaint can be rejected and now what are the
provisions that are related to the rejection of the plaint under Code of Civil Procedure. Some of the
provisions regarding the rejection of a plaint are mentioned below:

 Order VII Rule 12 of C.P.C states the procedure on rejecting the plaint so that it can be used
as a precedent for future cases.

 Order VII Rule 13 of C.P.C states that rejection of the plaint does not stop the presentation or
filling of the fresh plaint.

Two modes which are mentioned to show the manner in which the plaint can be rejected:

 The defendant has the right to file an application in the form of an interlocutory application at
any stage of proceedings for the rejection of the plaint.
 Suo moto (on its own): The meaning of the suo moto itself defines the way of rejection of the
plaint. Suo moto rejection is under Order 7 Rule 11 which states Rejection of the plaint. A
court can itself try a suit under Order 7 Rule 11 if the plaint fulfills the conditions discussed
in the first point.

Landmark Cases on Rejection of Plaint

Many cases came in front of court related to the rejection of plaint but some of the cases given below
are now considered as a landmark for other cases on the rejection of plaint:

Kalepur Pala Subrahmanyam v Tiguti Venkata: In this case, it was said that a plaint cannot be
rejected in part and retained part under this rule. It must be rejected as a whole and not with the
rejection of one part and acceptance of another. This judgment is considered as a landmark judgment
on the rejection of the plaint.

Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Asstt. Charity Commr.: In this case, it was held that where the suit was at
the stage of recording of evidence and an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the code was filed to
delay the proceedings of the suit, the application under Order 7 rule 11 of the code was rejected.

Bibhas Mohan Mukherjee v. Hari Charan Banerjee: In this case, it was held that an Order rejecting a
plaint is a decree and hence it is applicable and binding in other cases which involves the rejection of
the plaint.

1. ROJA vs. U.S. RAYU: Court, in this case, held that any application for the rejection of the
plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the code of civil procedure can be filed at any stage and the
court has to dispose of the same before proceeding with the trial.
Kuldeep Singh Pathania vs. Bikram Singh Jarya: In this, the court held that for an application under
Order VII Rule 11(a) of Code of Civil Procedure, only the pleadings of the plaintiff can be looked into
and neither the written statement nor averments can be considered for inquiry.

Appearance and Non-Appearance of

Parties (Order 9)
The appearance of parties to the suit

As stated under Rule 1 of Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure, the parties to the suit are required
to attend the court either in person or by their pleaders on the day which has been fixed in the
summons. If the plaintiff or a defendant, when ordered to appear in person, do not appear before the
court and neither show the sufficient cause for his non-appearance, the court is empowered under
Rule 12 of Order IX as follows.

 If the plaintiff does not appear, dismiss the suit.

 If the defendant does not appear, pass an ex-parte order.

Non-appearance of both parties to the suit

When neither the plaintiff nor the defendant appears before the court when the suit is called for
hearing, then the court is empowered to dismiss the suit under Rule 3 of Order IX. The dismissal of
the suit under this rule does not put a bar on filing a fresh suit on the same cause of action as per
Rule 4.

The plaintiff can also apply for setting aside the dismissal if he is able to satisfy the court that there
was sufficient behind his non-appearance. If the court is satisfied with the cause of non-appearance
then it may set aside the order of dismissal and schedule a day for the hearing of the suit.

The appearance of the plaintiff

When only the plaintiff appears but the defendant does not appear, then an ex-parte order can be
passed against the defendant. But, the plaintiff has to prove that the summon was served to the
defendant.

If service of the summons is proved then only the court can proceed for an ex-parte against the
defendant and the court may pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff. This provision applies only for the
first hearing and not for the subsequent hearings of the matter and the same has been held in the
case of Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal.

Even while passing an ex-parte order it is the duty of the court to secure the end of justice even in the
absence of the defendant. In the case of Maya Devi v. Lalta Prasad, it has been held by the Supreme
Court that -It is the duty of the court to ensure that statements in the plaint stand proven and the
prayers asked before the court are worthy of being granted. This provision of passing ex parte order
cannot be passed when there are more than one defendants in the case and any of them appears.

Appearance of defendant
The provisions laid down to deal with the appearance of only the defendant has been laid down from
rule 7-11 of Order IX. When the defendant appears but there is non-appearance of the plaintiff, then
there can be two situations:

 The defendant does not admit the claim of the plaintiff, either wholly or any part of it.
 The defendant admits the plaintiff claim.

If the defendant does not admit the claim of the plaintiff, then the court shall order for dismissal of the
suit. But, when the defendant admits completely or any part of the claim made by the plaintiff then
the court is empowered to pass a decree against the defendant on the ground of such admission and
for rest of the claim, the suit will be dismissed.

Dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff without hearing him is a serious matter and it should not be
adopted unless the court gets satisfied that in the interest of justice such dismissal is required, as
cited by Beaumont, C.J. in the case of  Shamdasani v. Central Bank of India.