CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 - RESEARCH PROJECT

On
“CRITICALLY ANALYSE THE CASE OF SALEEM BHAI V. STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA, AIR 2003 SC 759”

MAHARASHTRA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, AURANGABAD

Submitted to

Submitted by

KAJAL MHASAL (2019/BALLB/19)

B.A. LLB (HONS.) SEMESTER-VII

Under the guidance of

Prof. Vivek Wilson

Professor (Code of Civil Procedure, 1908)

MNLU, Aurangabad

OCTOBER, 2022
 RECOGNITION

I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to the esteemed Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
professor, Prof. Vivek Wilson, for giving me opportunity to work on this project titled
“Critically analyse the case of Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2003 SC 759”. I
tried to do my best to gather information about the project in a number of ways in order to
present a clear picture of the given project subject.
 DECLARATION

I, the undersigned, solemnly acknowledge that the project report on “Critically analyse the
case of Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2003 SC 759”, is based on my own work
completed under the supervision of my professor during the course of my studies. I say that
the assertions made and the findings reached are the product of my study. I also certify that:
I. The report's material is original, and it was produced by me under the general
guidance of my supervisor.
II. The work has not been applied to any other college for any other degree, diploma,
or credential in this university or any other Indian or foreign university.
III. In preparing the research, I followed the university's guidance.
IV. When I use materials (data, analytical research, and text) from other sources, I
credited them in the report's text and included their contact information in the
references.

KAJAL MHASAL

2019/BALLB/19
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

RECOGNITION.........................................................................................................................2

DECLARATION........................................................................................................................3

TABLE OF CONTENTS...........................................................................................................4

INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................5

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY...........................................................................................6

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY.................................................................................................6

CONTEMPORARY LEGAL RELEVANCE............................................................................6

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY...............................................................................................6

SCOPE & LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY...........................................................................7

ORDER VII RULE 11...............................................................................................................7

OBJECT OF ORDER VII RULE 11 CPC.................................................................................7

NATURE OF POWER...............................................................................................................8

STAGE AT WHICH POWER CAN BE EXERCISED.............................................................8

HOW TO EXERCISE THE POWER........................................................................................8

GROUNDS.................................................................................................................................9

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT......................................................................................12

RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................................................................13

CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................13
 INTRODUCTION

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.

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, 1 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 certain circumstances which will be elaborated in the project.

1 Selina Sheehan v. Hafez Mohammad Fateh Nashib, AIR 1932 Cal 685.
 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

In the justice system, it is very important that one gets justice on time. India's legal system is
notorious for this aspect of delays in the administration of justice which ultimately fails if not
completely, at least part of the purpose of the whole case.

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

This project aims to “Critically analyse the case of Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra,
AIR 2003 SC 759” at the various judgments passed by the honorable Supreme Court and
their consequences. Thereby analyzing the Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code.

CONTEMPORARY LEGAL RELEVANCE

In the discharge of judicial duty, dealing with petition under Order VII Rule 11 of Civil
Procedure Code (hereinafter „CPC‟) is unavoidable. Very often, the petitions are filed under
the said provision. No doubt, judicial time is precious. It ought to be employed in the most
efficient manner possible. Sham litigations are menace to the society should be minimised.
Unnecessary litigations, not only waste the time of the court, but also cause unwarranted
prejudice and harm to parties.

Therefore, CPC enables the court to reject the plaint if certain conditions are satisfied.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The study is based on the secondary source of information. Data is collected from books,
Journals, websites. The present research work on the topic of “Critically analyse the
case of Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2003 SC 759” is both explorative and
analytical. It sought to construct, throughout the analysis of secondary data. The documents
of government policy, legislative data, and try to find out the changes and
loopholes in it. Published works by eminent authors are also consulted during the
research. Since, the present topic was purely academic it was inevitable and inherently
mandatory that only secondary sources be made use of. Therefore, I have made use of journal
articles, leading books and of course the source of knowledge for avid readers.
 SCOPE & LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

In this project, the researcher studies the major chunk of jurisprudence around Order VII Rule
11, revolves around Rule 11, which states that plaint shall be rejected if it the relief
claimed is barred by law. Now in cases whether the determination of bar of law is a 'mixed
question of law and fact', the rejection of plaint is not ordered by the court. The researcher’s
study was even limited by his understanding as there could be some basic observations which
he might have failed to put forward in the project due to limited understanding of the subject.

ORDER VII RULE 11

While filing an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the
Court is bound to see whether the case on hand falls within six limbs stated. If the suit is not
falling under any of those categories, the plaint cannot be rejected.2

OBJECT OF ORDER VII RULE 11 CPC

The underlying object of Order VII Rule 11 (a) is that, if in a suit, no cause of action is
disclosed, or the suit is barred by limitation under Rule 11 (d), the Court would not permit the
plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in the suit. In such a case, it would be
necessary to put an end to sham litigation, so that further judicial time is not wasted.
The whole purpose of conferment of powers under this provision is to ensure that a litigation
which is meaningless, and bound to prove abortive, should not be permitted to waste judicial
time of the court.3
The real object of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code is to keep out of courts irresponsible law
suits. The scope of Rule 11 of Order VII CPC has been explained in various decisions and the
legal principles deducible are that, if the Plaint does not disclose the cause of action or is
barred by law; can be rejected where the litigation was utterly vexatious and abuse of process
of Court. Thus, the provision of Order VII Rule 11 CPC being procedural is designed and
aimed to prevent vexatious and frivolous litigation.4

NATURE OF POWER

2 V. Bragan Nayagi v. R.R. Jeyaprakasam, 2015(4) MLJ 538.

3 Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi 1986 Supp. SCC 315.
4 Dr. L. Ramachandran v. K. Ramesh, 2015(4) LW. 585 (Mad) (DB), Para 26.
The remedy under Order VII Rule 11 is an independent and special remedy, wherein the
Court is empowered to summarily dismiss a suit at the threshold, without proceeding to
record evidence, and conducting a trial, on the basis of the evidence adduced, if it is satisfied
that the action should be terminated on any of the grounds contained in this provision. 5
The provision of Order VII Rule 11 is mandatory in nature. It states that the plaint “shall”
be rejected if any of the grounds specified in clause (a) to (e) are made out. If the Court finds
that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, or that the suit is barred by any law, the
Court has no option, but to reject the plaint.6

STAGE AT WHICH POWER CAN BE EXERCISED

The power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC may be exercised by the Court at any stage of the
suit, either before registering the plaint, or after issuing summons to the defendant, or before
conclusion of the trial. A direction to file the written statement without deciding the
application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. cannot but be procedural irregularity touching
the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court.7
Therefore, it is clear that merely because issues have been framed, it cannot be said that the
application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is not maintainable.

HOW TO EXERCISE THE POWER

 Only a part of the claim cannot be rejected and if no cause of action is disclosed, the
plaint as a whole must be rejected.8
 If the plaint makes out a case indicating a cause of action, then falsity of the claim
would be a matter to be determined at the time of trial and if at all the suit is found to
be vexatious or based on false assertion, then the plaintiff would be liable for
compensatory cost under 35-A of CPC.
 It has been held that while considering the rejection of plaint under O 7 Rule 11 CPC,
the strength or weakness of the plaintiff's case is not to be seen and what is required to
be disclosed by the plaintiff is clear right to sue.9
 It is to be noted that under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC there is a requirement of
inclusion of cause of action. Ordinarily, a court of law is to presume that every
5 Dahiben V. Arvinbhai Kalyanji Bhansai 2020 SCC On line 563 Para 11.
6 Dahiben V. Arvinbhai Kalyanji Bhansai 2020 SCC On line 563, Para 12.10.
7 Saleem Bhai and Ors V. State of Maharastra, AIR 2003 SC 759.
8 Roop Lal Sathi V. Nachhattar Singh Gill AIR 1982 SC 1559: (1982) 3 SCC 487.
9 Astral Cables Ltd., V. The NSCI corporation Ltd, 2011-2-LW. 332: 2011(7) MLJ 438 (DB).
 allegation in the plaint is true. As a matter of fact, when the plaint raises arguable
points which requires deeper deliberation and scrutiny, the same cannot be rejected in
the eye of law.
 Also, that, a plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, where the suit
is required to be heard on merits after taking evidence in a given case. However, if the
averments made in the plaint and the documents relied upon establish a cause of
action, then the plaint should not be merely rejected based on the reason that the
averments are not enough to prove the facts mentioned therein. Moreover, a court of
law can examine the parties to clear the pleadings10.
 The power to strike off the plaint can be exercised even if the defendant did not file an
application to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.11

GROUNDS

• Plaint does not disclose cause of action- Rule 11(a)

Cause of action implies a right to sue. Cause of action is not defined in any statute. It has,
however, been judicially interpreted inter alia to mean that every fact which would be
necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment
of the Court. For every action, there has to be a cause of action, if not, the plaint or the writ
petition, as the case may be, shall be rejected summarily. 12
It is a settled proposition of law that to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (a) of the
Code, the petitioner / defendant should establish that there is no legally sustainable cause of
action, to seek the relief as prayed for in the plaint.13
Whether a plaint discloses a cause of action or not is essentially a question of fact. But
whether it does or does not must be found out from reading the plaint itself. For the said
purpose the averments made in the plaint in their entirety must be held to be correct.
In so far as Order VII Rule 11 CPC is concerned, when no cause of action is disclosed, the
court will not unnecessarily protract the hearing of the suit.14

10 R. Perumal Naicker V. R. Sakrapani, (2013) 6 MLJ 119, Para 10, 11.

11 Mani alias Nagamani & Ors. P. Ramakrishnan, 2018(4) MLJ 182, Para 9.
12 Usum Ingots & Alloys Ltd., V. Union of India and another (2004) 6 Supreme Court Cases, 254, Para 6.
13 M/S. Narasu's Coffee Company v. R. P. Sarathy 2014(3) LW 419(Mad): 2014(5) MLJ 710, Para 72. 24
Electronic Machine Tools Limited rep. by its Branch Manager, Chennai V. Power Engineers, (2011)6 MLJ
929, Para 16.
14 V. K. John V. Seetharam and Ors. 2009(1) TLNJ 14(Civil) Division Bench, Para 32.
So long as the claim discloses some cause of action or raises some questions fit to be decided
by a judge, the mere fact that the case is weak and not likely to succeed is no ground for
strike it out.15
Normally a plaint can be rejected only if there is absolutely no cause of action and the same
cannot be rejected if there is a lack of cause of action.16
The trial court can reject a plaint only when it is found that any of the conditions under Rule
11 of Order VII of CPC exists. The trial court has gone into the merits of the case and
rejected the plaint on the ground that the averments stated in the plaint have not been
substantiated by documentary evidence which is clearly a matter of trial. The trial court can
ascertain as to whether the plaint discloses cause of action or not, but cannot ascertain as to
whether the plaintiff could be entitled to get the relief prayed for in the facts and
circumstances disclosed in the plaint. 17

• Suit is undervalued - 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.
In Commercial Aviation & Travel Company & Ors. v. Vimal Pannalal,18 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. If a suit is not properly or
correctly valued, an appropriate order to be passed by a Court of Law, is to call upon the
Plaintiff to furnish the correct valuation. If a Court of Law holds that the relief prayed for by
the Plaintiff has been undervalued and orders a party to correct the same, then, it is open to
the Plaintiff to amend the valuation at any time before an order rejecting the plaint is made so

15 Liver pool and London SP&I Association V. M.V. Sea success I and Anr., (2004) 9 SCC 512.
16 P. Chidambaram V. R. S. Rajakannappan, 2012 (3) CTC 673, Para 32.2.
17 M. Chinnaiyah V. Naina Mohammed 2. Noorjahan Beham,2012-5-L.W. 250, Para 5.
18 Commercial Aviation & Travel Company & Ors. v. Vimal Pannalal, 1988 AIR 1636.
31
Ramakrishna Reddi v. Veera Reddi, AIR 1946 Mad 126.
as to limit the claim to the Court Fee paid, as per decision in Ramakrishna Reddi V. Veera
Reddi.31
• 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,19
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.
• Order VII Rule 11 (d)
Order VII Rule 11 (d) has limited applications. For its applicability it must be shown that the
present suit is barred under law. Such a conclusion must be drawn from the averments made
in the plaint.20
The language of Order VII Rule 11 CPC is quite clear and unambiguous. The plaint can be
rejected on the ground of limitation only where the suit appears from the statement in the
plaint to be barred by any law. Law within the meaning of clause (d) of Order VII Rule 11
must include the law of limitation as well.21
Effect of rejection of plaint
In any event, rejection of the plaint under Rule 11 does not preclude the plaintiffs from
presenting a fresh plaint in terms of Rule 13.

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT

1. Appeal before the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition under Article-136 of
the Constitution. Leave granted.
2. Facts of the case:

19 Midnapore Zamindary Co. Ltd. v. Secretary of State, AIR 1938 Cal 804.
20 M. Nelson babu v. Kamalesh Babu and another, 2009(5) CTC 814, Para 11.
21 Dega Jayalakshmi & Others v. Kapoor Enterprises, Rep. by its Managing Partner, R.M. Lakshman Dass &
Others, 2010(1) MLJ 1167(Mad), Para 25
  The defendants filed an application U/O-7, R-11, seeking dismissal of the plaint of the
plaintiff on the grounds that it shows no cause of action (O-7, R-11(a)). The plaintiff
moved an application seeking filing of WS of the defendant U/O-8, R-10, before
deciding the defendant’s application U/O-7, R-11.
 The trial court decided the plaintiff’s application called for the WS of the defendant
before rendering any decision on the defendant’s application.
 Aggrieved, the defendant moved the High Court but failed.
 Hence, this SLP before the Supreme Court. Leave granted.

3. Question of law before the court:

1. Whether an application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. ought to be decided on the
allegations in the plaint and filing of the written statement by the contesting defendant
is irrelevant and unnecessary?

4. Decision of the Supreme Court:

1. The decision of whether or not to reject a plaint U/O-7, R-11 has to be made entirely on
the basis of the averments made in the plaint and there is no need to ask for the WS of
the defendant at this stage. If the plaint does not have a cause of action the court has no
option but to reject the plaint.

5. Important paragraphs from the judgment:

The learned senior counsels appearing for the appellants have contended that having regard to
the very nature of the relief claimed by the plaintiffs, the plaints are liable to be rejected
under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. and that the court ought to have considered the said
application or merits instead of giving direction to file written statement which would amount
to not exercising the jurisdiction vested in the court. It is further contended that the High
Court also did not appreciate that the plaints do not show any cause of action and that the
plaint ought to have been rejected as the suit is barred by the principles of res judicata and lis
pendence.

The short common question that arises for consideration in these appeals is, whether an
application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. ought to be decided on the allegations in the
plaint and filing of the written statement by the contesting defendant is irrelevant and
unnecessary.
 RECOMMENDATIONS

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.

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.

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.