Rejection of Plaint Under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC

Rejection of plaint under
Order 7, Rule 11 CPC
S.S. Upadhyay
Former District & Sessions Judge/
Former Addl. Director (Training)
Institute of Judicial Training & Research, UP, Lucknow.
Member, Governing Body,
Chandigarh Judicial Academy, Chandigarh.
Former Legal Advisor to Governor
Raj Bhawan, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow
Mobile : 9453048988
E-mail : [email protected]
Website: lawhelpline.in
1. Objection for rejection of plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC should be raised as early
as possible: Power to summarily reject the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC can be
exercised by the Court at the threshold of the proceedings and this power is also available
thereafter in the absence of any restrictions statutorily placed. However, a preliminary
objection as to the rejection of plaint should be raised as early as possible, though the power
of the court to consider the same at a subsequent stage is not taken away. See:
(i) Vithalbhai (P) Ltd Vs. Union Bank Of India, (2005) 4 SCC 315.
(ii) Samar Singh Vs. KedarNath, 1987 suppl. SCC 663.
2.Order 7, Rule 11 (d) CPC applies only where the statement as made in the plaint
without any doubt or dispute shows that the suit is barred by any law: Order 7, Rule 11
(d) CPC applies only where the statement as made in the plaint without any doubt or dispute
shows that the suit is barred by any law in force. It does not apply in case of any disputed
question. Rejection of the plaint under Oder 7, Rule 11 CPC does not preclude the plaintiff
from presenting a fresh plaint in terms of Rule 13 of Order 7 CPC. Order 7, Rule 11 CPC is
applicable at any stage of the suit subject to above position of law. Order 7, Rule 11 CPC
even casts a duty on the court to perform its obligations in rejecting the plaint when the same
is hit by any of the infirmities provided in the four clauses of Order 7, Rule 11 CPC even
without the intervention of the defendant. See:
(i) Popat and Kotecha Property Vs. State Bank of India staff Association, (2005) 7 SCC
510.
(ii) Sopan Sukhder Cable Vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner, (2004) 3 SCC 137
(iii) Saleem Bhai Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 1 SCC 557
(iv) ITC Ltd. Vs. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, (1998) 2 SCC 70
(v) T. Arivandandandam Vs. T.V.Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467
(vi) Rooplal Sathi Vs. Nachhattar Singh Gill, (1982) 3 SCC 487
(vii) Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. Vs. Ganesh Property, (1998) 7 SCC 184.
(viii) Bruce Vs. Odham Press Ltd., (1936) 1 KB 697.
3. While dealing with an application for rejection of plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC,
Court cannot go into disputed question of fact: While dealing with an application for
rejection of plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, Court cannot go into disputed question of fact
but while granting temporary injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 CPC, Court can do so.
See: M. Gurudas Vs. Rasaranjan, (2006) 8 SCC 367.
4. Plaint not to be rejected at the outset under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC as barred by
limitation if the question of limitation appears to be a mixed question of law and fact:
When limitation is a pure question of law and is visible from the pleadings itself, it becomes
clear that the suit is barred by limitation. Then, of course, it is the duty of the court to decide
the question of limitation at the outset even in the absence of a plea. But where the question
of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law out of the suit and it does not appear to be
barred by law on the face of it, then the issue of limitation has to framed and proved. See:
Narne Rama Murthy Vs. Ravula Somasundaram (2005) 6 SCC 614.
5. Rejection of plaint under Order 7, Rule 11(b) CPC proper if the plaintiff failed to
correct the valuation clause within time fixed by Court: Where the plaintiff had failed to
correct the valuation and amend the plaint within the time fixed by the Court and subsequent
application of the plaintiff seeking amendment of the plaint was also rejected by the court, it
has been held by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court that the Court committed no error in
rejecting the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11(b) CPC and also in rejecting the amendment
application moved by plaintiff. See: Murti Sri Sheoji Bhagwan Vs. M/s Hindalco,
Renukoot, Mirzapur, 1997 (30) ALR 134 (All)
6. Only the averments in the plaint, and not the averments of the written statement, can
be seen at the stage of deciding application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC: While deciding
to accept or reject the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, what can be seen by the Court is
only the averments made in the plaint. Defence in written statement of the defendant cannot
be looked into. See:
(i) Saleem Bhai Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 1 SCC 557
(ii) T. Arivandandandam Vs. T.V.Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467
7. Defect of misjoinder of parties and causes of action cannot be a ground for rejection of
plaint under Order 7, Rule 11(d) CPC: Defect of misjoinder of parties and causes of action
cannot be a ground for rejection of plaint under Order 7, Rule 11(d) CPC. See: Prem Lala
Nahata Vs.Chandi Pol. Sikaria, AIR 2007 SC 1247
8.Plaint cannot be rejected at the outset under Order 7, Rule 11(d) CPC on the ground of
doubtful boundaries of the land : In the case noted below, a plea of limitation was raised by
the defendant for rejection of plaint under Order 7, Rule 11(d) CPC. The suit was filed by the
plaintiff for declaration of title, possession and injunction based on sale-deed alleging that the
defendant was a trespasser. The defendant disputed the boundaries of the suit land on the
ground that they were different in the plaint and the sale-deed. It was held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court that such a question is a question to be considered at the trial and the plaint
cannot be rejected on such ground at the outset under Order 7, Rule 11(d) CPC. See:
Natarajan Vs. Ashimbai, AIR 2008 SC 363.
9. Under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC read with Order 14, Rule 2 CPC, civil court has power to
decide its own jurisdiction and the question of maintainability of the suit: Order 7, Rule
11 CPC read with Order 14, Rule 2 CPC empowers civil court to decide its own jurisdiction
and the question regarding maintainability of the suit. The court is also competent to decide
as to whether the suit is barred by estoppel or res-judicata. See: Thirumala Tirupati
Devasthanam Vs. Thallappaka Ananthacharyu, (2003) 8 SCC 134
******

Rejection of Plaint Under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rejection of Plaint Under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rejection of Plaint Under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rejection of plaint under

Order 7, Rule 11 CPC

You might also like