Rejection Of Plaint Under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC

Order  7 Rule 11 provides for certain circumstances wherein a plaint can be rejected.  The Plaint can be rejected when the Plaint does not show any cause of action or when the plaint is barred by  any law.

There are other technical grounds on which plaint can be rejected. A plaint can be rejected if plaint is insufficiently stamped and the same is not supplied within time fixed by the Court. Such time can be extended by the Court if refusal of the same will cause grave injustice to the plaintiff. A suit can also be rejected if it is not filed in duplicate. A suit can also be rejected it fails to comply with Order 7 Rule 9.

POWER UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 CAN BE EXCERCISED AT ANY STAGE

The Supreme Court has held in catena of cases that the Court can exercise power under Order 7 Rule 11 at any stage of the Suit. The Supreme Court has held in  Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Charity Commr., (2004) 3 SCC 137) that the trial court can exercise power under Order 7 Rule 11 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.

AVERMENTS IN PLAINT ONLY RELEVANT

While determining whether an Application is barred by any law  only contents of the Plaint have to be relied. The submissions made in the written statement can not be considered while determining rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.  

In Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra (2003) 1 SCC 557  the Supreme Court has held that the plea taken by defendant is wholly irrelevant at the stage of determination of application for rejection of plaint.

In Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. Vs. Central Bank of India & Anr (2020 SCC OnLine SC 482), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the court has to look into the averments in the plaint and the same can be exercised by the trial court at any stage of the suit.

REJECTION ON GROUND OF CAUSE OF ACTION

A plaint has to be rejected if the it does not have cause of action.

The Supreme Court in T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467 has held that if on a meaningful-not formal-reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, be should exercise his power under Or. VII r. 1 1 C.P.C. taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clever, drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order X C.P.C.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abdul Gafur Vs. State of  Uttarakhand (2008) 10 SCC 97 has held that when plaint does not disclose material facts giving rise to a cause of action, it may be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11.

The Supreme Court in Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy [Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal, (2017) 13 SCC 174 has observed  that If clever drafting of the plaint has created the illusion of a cause of action, the court will nip it in the bud at the earliest so that bogus litigation will end at the earlier stage.

REJECTION OF PLAINT ON THE GROUD OF BEING BARRED UNDER ANY LAW

The Plaint can also be rejected on ground of being barred under any law. A plaint can be rejected on the ground of being barred by limitation or res judicata or any other law.

____________________________________________________________