When a civil suit is filed, the plaint is the first document that sets out the plaintiff’s claim. However, not all plaints are deemed valid, and the court has the power to reject a plaint under specific circumstances. Understanding the rules and precedents governing under CPC Order 7 Rule 11 : Rejection of a Plaint is vital for both plaintiffs and defendants in civil litigation.
Grounds for CPC Order 7 Rule 11 : Rejection of a Plaint
A plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC under the following circumstances:
(a) Where it does not disclose a cause of action;
- A plaint must demonstrate a clear right to sue. It is the duty of the court to determine if a cause of action exists before issuing summons.
- The court should examine the plaint’s averments to see if they establish a cause of action, without considering the defence.
- A plaint can be rejected if the cause of action is barred by limitation based on the statements in the plaint, not just based on a defence. However, if the plaint states the suit is within limitation, then Order 7 Rule 11(d) is not attracted.
- A plea that there was no cause of action for the suit is different from the plea that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action.
(b) Where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
- If the relief claimed is undervalued, the court must allow the plaintiff time to correct the valuation. Rejection is warranted only if the plaintiff fails to correct the valuation within the given time.
- If the court determines that a valuation is arbitrary, it may direct the plaintiff to amend the valuation.
- If the correct valuation would render the court incompetent to entertain the suit, the plaint should be returned under Rule 10, not rejected under Rule 11(b).
(c) Where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
- The court can allow the plaintiff to pay the deficit court fee at any stage.
- The plaint should only be rejected if the plaintiff does not rectify the deficiency within the time allowed.
(d) Where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;
- This applies when the plaint’s statements clearly show that the suit is barred by any law, including limitation.
- For example, if a suit is filed against the government without the notice required under Section 80 of CPC, the plaint should be rejected.
- (e) Where it is not filed in duplicate;
- The plaint must be filed in duplicate, and non-compliance can lead to rejection.
- (f) Where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9;
- This refers to non-compliance with the requirement of filing a written statement.
Can a Plaint be Rejected in Parts?
- Yes, when a suit is brought against multiple defendants and is barred against some but not others, the proper action is to strike out the plaint against the defendants for whom it is barred, and proceed with the suit against the rest. Therefore, a plaint can be rejected in part.
Can a Plaint be Amended to Nullify the Effect of an Application under CPC Order 7 Rule 11?
- Yes, a plaint can be amended.
- The court may allow a party to amend their pleadings.
- Amendments should be allowed if they are necessary for determining the real question in controversy, and they do not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side.
- A plaint can be amended to correct the valuation or to pay deficient court fees.
- When a suit appears to be barred by the law of limitation from the statements in the plaint, the court can allow the plaint to be amended at the hearing.
- If a court finds a valuation to be arbitrary, the plaintiff may be directed to amend the valuation.
- The provisions of Order II Rule 2 of the CPC, do not bar an amendment application.
- An application for amendment must be distinguished from the cause of action which is sought to be set up by the amendment.
- Even if an application for amendment is allowed, the question of whether the cause of action is within limitation would have to be determined and adjudicated upon.
Remedy Against Order under CPC Order 7 Rule 11 : Rejection of a Plaint
- If a plaint is rejected under Order 7 Rule 11, the plaintiff is not precluded from presenting a fresh plaint for the same cause of action.
- The rejection of a plaint does not prevent a fresh suit on the same cause of action.
Is an Order Under Order 7 Rule 11 Appealable or Revisional?
- Rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 is appealable.
- An order rejecting a plaint is specifically appealable under Order 43 Rule 1(a).
- A revision application under Section 115 of the Code is maintainable provided the conditions laid down in Section 115 are satisfied.
- The High Court may revise an order passed by a subordinate court where no appeal lies.
- Revision is permissible when a subordinate court has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or acted illegally or with material irregularity.
READ MORE: Guide to Execution of a money decree under order 21 CPC
How Courts Evaluate Multiple Dying Declarations?
Landmark Cases Related to CPC Order 7 Rule 11 : Rejection of a Plaint
1. Abdul Gaffar vs State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 2023 SC 78)
The plaintiff filed a suit challenging a government action without providing the mandatory notice under Section 80 of the CPC.
The Supreme Court upheld the rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d), stating that failure to comply with procedural requirements renders the suit barred by law.
2. In State Bank of India vs. M/s. A. Raman and another (Civil Appeal No. 10446 of 2017), the Supreme Court reiterated the importance of Order 7 Rule 11 in weeding out frivolous or technically deficient lawsuits. The Court emphasized that courts should not be overly technical in their approach to plaint rejection, but ensure the plaint discloses a cause of action and adheres to basic legal requirements.
3. Saleem Bhai & Ors. vs State of Maharashtra (2002 AIR SC 759)
The trial court rejected a plaint without considering the grounds under Order 7 Rule 11.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the grounds for rejection must be strictly limited to those mentioned in Rule 11, based solely on the plaint’s contents.
4. ITC Ltd. v. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal [(1998) 2 SCC 70]: This case clarifies that clever drafting to create the illusion of a cause of action is not permitted, and a clear right to sue should be shown in the plaint.
5. Orissa Mining Corpn Ltd v. Klockner & Co. (AIR 1996 Ori 163): For the purpose of determining whether a suit is barred under Order 7 Rule 11(a), only the averments in the plaint are to be considered.
6. C. Natarajan v. Ashim Bai (AIR 2008 SC 363): The court held that an application for rejection of the plaint can be filed if the allegations made in the plaint even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety appear to be barred by any law58.
7. Ramniklal v. Mathurlal (AIR 1965 Guj 214): A plaint, of which the cause of action is barred by the Law of Limitation, does not mean that such a plaint does not disclose a cause of action. Such a plaint does disclose a cause of action, but the plaintiff’s remedy in respect of it is barred by limitation2.
8. Martin & Harris Ltd v. Sixth Additional District Judge [(1998) 1 SCC 732]: Where the appellant had pressed for rejection of application on the ground of s 21 (1)(a) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act of 1972, as not showing completed cause of action due to non-expiry of six months as stipulated by the Act, the appellant could have withdrawn the suit and filed a fresh suit after expiry of the stipulated time2.
9. Satyananda Sahoo v. Ratikanta Panda (AIR 1997 Ori 67): It is the duty of the court to look into the averments of the plaint to see if the cause of action saves limitation or not2.
10. Mohan Lal Sukhadia University v. Priya Soluman (AIR 1999 Raj 102): Order 7, r 11(d) applies to those cases only where the statement made by the plaintiff in the plaint without any doubt or dispute show that the suit is barred by any law in force. Where the plaintiff in the plaint makes a statement that suit was within limitation as the cause of action arose on a particular date, the provisions of O 7, r 11(d) cannot be attracted.
11. J. Patel & Co v. National Federation of Industrial Cooperatives Ltd. (AIR 1996 Cal 253): Where the plaint appears to be barred by time even after considering the averments of the acknowledgement of the debt in the plaint, the plaint can be rejected under O 7, r 11.
12. Khaja Quthubullah v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1995 AP 43): There remains no doubt that the question of limitation would be a mixed question of law and fact.
13. Union Territory of Tripura v. Indu Bhusan. (AIR 1963 Tri 48): Where in a suit against the government, the plaint does not allege that notice has been served as required by Sec. 80, the plaint is liable to be rejected.
14. Phoolsundari v. Gurbans Singh (AIR 1957 Raj 97): When a suit is instituted against a number of defendants and is barred against some but not others, the proper order is to strike out the plaint against those defendants against whom it is barred and proceed with the suit against the rest4.
15. Sriramulu v. Raju [(1950) 1 Mad LJ 180]: An order rejecting a plaint under this rule should be made only after the plaintiff is given an opportunity to correct the valuation and pay the deficient court-fee, and he fails to do so
16. T. Arivandandam vs T.V. Satyapal (1977 AIR 2421, 1978 SCR (1) 742)
In this landmark case, the Supreme Court of India laid down principles for rejecting frivolous or vexatious plaints under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The case emphasized that courts must scrutinize the plaint carefully at the outset to determine whether it discloses a cause of action.
The plaintiff filed a suit that lacked a genuine cause of action and was aimed at harassing the defendant.
- Judgment: The Supreme Court held that if a plaint is frivolous or vexatious and does not disclose a clear cause of action, it should be rejected at the earliest stage to prevent misuse of the judicial process.
- Significance: The court urged judges to act swiftly to strike out sham litigations to save judicial time and resources.
This case serves as a precedent for rejecting baseless claims and ensuring that the legal process is not misused.
FAQs on CPC Order 7 Rule 11 : Rejection of a Plaint
1. What are the grounds for rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC?
A plaint can be rejected if it does not disclose a cause of action, the relief claimed is undervalued and not corrected, there is insufficient court fee and the deficit is not paid, the suit is barred by any law, it is not filed in duplicate, or the plaintiff fails to comply with Rule 9 of CPC.
2. Can a rejected plaint be amended?
Yes, courts generally permit amendments to rectify defects such as incorrect valuation, deficient court fees, or other technical errors. Amendments must not cause prejudice to the other party and should address the issues identified for rejection.
3. Can a plaint be rejected in part?
Yes, if a suit is filed against multiple defendants, the plaint can be rejected for defendants against whom the suit is barred by law, while it can proceed against the remaining defendants.
4. What happens if the relief claimed is undervalued?
If the relief claimed is undervalued, the court will ask the plaintiff to correct the valuation within a specified time. If the plaintiff fails to comply, the plaint may be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11.
5. Is rejection of a plaint appealable?
Yes, an order rejecting a plaint is appealable under Order 43 Rule 1(a) of the CPC. The plaintiff can challenge the rejection by filing an appeal in the appropriate appellate court.
6. Can a fresh suit be filed after rejection?
Yes, a plaintiff can file a fresh suit based on the same cause of action, provided the defects that led to the rejection of the original plaint are rectified in the new filing.
7. What does ‘barred by law’ mean under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC?
It means the suit is prohibited under existing laws, such as being time-barred under the Limitation Act or filed without serving mandatory notice under Section 80 CPC where required.
8. What is the remedy for insufficient court fees?
If the court finds that the required court fee has not been paid, it may direct the plaintiff to pay the deficit within a fixed time. Rejection occurs only if the plaintiff fails to comply.
9. What is the difference between rejection and return of a plaint?
Rejection of a plaint under Rule 11 terminates the suit, while the return of a plaint under Rule 10 allows the plaintiff to refile it in the correct jurisdiction or court.
10. Can a plaint be rejected without hearing the plaintiff?
In most cases, courts review the plaint’s averments to decide on rejection. However, if needed, the court may hear the plaintiff to clarify certain issues before passing an order.
11. How does Rule 11 relate to Rule 9 of CPC?
Non-compliance with Rule 9, such as failure to file a duplicate copy of the plaint or other procedural requirements, can also result in rejection under Rule 11.
12. What is the timeline for appealing a rejection order?
The appeal against the rejection of a plaint must be filed within the time limit prescribed by the Limitation Act, generally within 30 days from the date of the order.
In summary, Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC provides specific grounds for the rejection of a plaint. While rejection is a significant step, the code provides avenues for amendment to correct defects. If a plaint is rejected, the plaintiff has the option of filing a fresh suit or appealing the order.
Read More:
How to prove WhatsApp chats and social media records under the IEA and BSA?
What is the definition of Dishonestly in BNS?
Disclaimer
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified legal professional for advice specific to your case. The author and legallyin.com are not responsible for any actions taken based on this content.
Copyright Notice: This article and its contents are the intellectual property of legallyin.com. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution is prohibited.