Rejection of Plaint

Indian Legal System > Civil Laws > The Code of Civil Procedure > Rejection of Plaint by the Court (Order VII Rules 11, 12 and 13)

The term Plaint has not been defined in the Code. However, it can be defined as a statement of claim by presentation of which the suit is instituted. It is pleading of the plaintiff. Thus, it is a legal document which contains the written statement of the plaintiff’s claim. It is the first step towards the initiation of a suit. Through the help of plaint, the plaintiff narrates or describes the cause of action and related information which is considered as essential from the viewpoint of the suit.  Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, deals with the rejection of plaint. The CPC empowers the civil courts to reject the plaint to the plaintiff if the court believes that the requirements are not fulfilled. Rejection of plaint weeds about frivolous, vexatious and improper plaints at the very outset, thus, saving judicial time and resources.

The rejection can be done at any stage before the conclusion of trial, and the ground on which it should be rejected must be considered by the simple reading of the plaint only and not on the basis of allegations made by the defendant in his written statement and not also on the basis of application for rejection. An order of rejection of plaint is a deemed decree, as provided under Section 2(2) of CPC, 1908.

Object of Order VII Rule 11:

The real object of Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code is to keep out of Courts irresponsible law suits. In order to consider Order 7 Rule 11, the Court has to scrutinize the averments/plea in the plaint. At that stage, the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement are wholly irrelevant and the matter is to be decided only on the plaint averments. If the allegations are vexatious and meritless and not disclosing a clear right or material to sue, it is duty of the trial Court to exercise his power.

In Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, AIR 1986 SC 1253 case, the court observed that the whole purpose of confernment of such powers (Order VII Rule 11) is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless and bound to prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time of the court and exercise the mind of the respondent. The sword of Damocle need not be kept hanging over his (Defendant’s) head unnecessarily without point or purpose. Even in an ordinary Civil litigation the Court readily exercises the power to reject a plaint if it does not disclose any cause of action. Or the power to direct the concerned party to strike out unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious parts of the pleadings. Or such pleadings which are likely to cause embarrassment or delay the fair trial of the action or which is otherwise an abuse of the process of law.

In Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Assistant Charity Commissioner, AIR 2004 SC 1801, case the Court observed that it is (Order VII Rule 11) a tool in the hands of the Courts by resorting to which and by searching examination of the party in case the Court is prima facie of the view that the suit is an abuse of the process of the Court in the sense that it is a bogus and irresponsible litigation, the jurisdiction under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code can be exercised. Court further held that rejection of plaint under Rule 11 does not preclude the plaintiffs from presenting a fresh plaint in terms of Rule 13.

In Kuok Oils and Grains PTE Ltd. v. Tower International Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2005 Guj 9 case, the Court observed that the whole purpose of conferment of powers under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless and bound to prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time of the Court and must be terminated and brought to an end at the earliest. The applicant should not be put to the long and expensive process of trial and the burden of litigation when it is clear at the outset that original plaintiff have no cause of action against the applicant and the plaint discloses no cause of action whatsoever.

In Sakeen Bhai v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2003 SC 759 case the Court held that a perusal of Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. makes it clear that the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application thereunder are the averments in the plaint. The trial Court can exercise the power under Order. VII, Rule. 11, C.P.C. 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. For the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Rule. 11 of Order. VII, C.P.C., the averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage, therefore, a direction to file the written statement without deciding the application under Order 7, Rule. 11, C.P.C. cannot but be procedural irregularity touching the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial Court.

In Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali, (Gajra)(D), 2020 SCC OnLine SC 562 Hon’ble Apex Court held that – The power conferred on the Court to terminate a civil action is, however, a drastic one, and the conditions enumerated in Order VII Rule 11 are required to be strictly adhered to.

1. Under Order VII Rule 11, a duty is cast on the Court to determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action by scrutinizing the averments in the plaint, read in conjunction with the documents relied upon, or whether the suit is barred by any law.
2. The documents filed along with the plaint, are required to be taken into consideration for deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 (a). When a document referred to in the plaint, forms the basis of the plaint, it should be treated as a part of the plaint.
3. In exercise of power under this provision, the Court would determine if the assertions made in the plaint are contrary to statutory law, or judicial dicta, for deciding whether a case for rejecting the plaint at the threshold is made out.
4. At this stage, the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement and application for rejection of the plaint on the merits, would be irrelevant, and cannot be adverted to, or taken into consideration
5. The test for exercising the power under Order VII Rule 11 is that if the averments made in the plaint are taken in entirety, in conjunction with the documents relied upon, would the same result in a decree being passed. This test was laid down in Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M. V. Sea Success I, (2004) 9 SCC 512.
6. As observed in Hardesh Ores (P.) Ltd. v. Hede & Co., (2007) 5 SCC 614 case, it is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage, and to read it in isolation. It is the substance, and not merely the form, which has to be looked into. The plaint has to be construed as it stands, without addition or subtraction of words. If the allegations in the plaint prima facie show a cause of action, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations are true in fact..
7. If on a meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and without any merit, and does not disclose a right to sue, the Court would be justified in exercising the power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
8. As held in Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra ,7 (2003) 1 SCC 557 case, 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.
9. “Cause of action” means every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to judgment. It consists of a bundle of material facts, which are necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to entitle him to the reliefs claimed in the suit.
10. While considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC what is required to be decided is whether the plaint discloses a real cause of action, or something purely illusory.
11. As held in I.T.C. Ltd. v. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, (1998) 2 SCC 170 Case, the Law cannot permit clever drafting which creates illusions of a cause of action. What is required is that a clear right must be made out in the plaint.
12. As held in Madanuri Sri Ramachandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal, SLP (Civil) No. 35352 of 216 case, If, however, by clever drafting of the plaint, it has created the illusion of a cause of action, it should be nipped in the bud, so that bogus litigation will end at the earliest stage.
13. The Court must be vigilant against any camouflage or suppression, and determine whether the litigation is utterly vexatious, and an abuse of the process of the Court.

In Kalepur Pala Subrahmanyam v Tiguti Venkata, AIR 1971 AP 313 case, the Court 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.  

Grounds of Rejection of Plaint:

The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:-

1. where it does not disclose a cause of action;
2. 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;
3. where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned 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;
4. where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;
5. where it is not filed in duplicate;
6. where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9.

Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature form correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff. Thus, the court on these grounds does not prima facie reject the plaint, it provides for the time to the plaintiff to cure such defects and still if the defects are not removed, the court shall proceed with such rejection. Thus, the proviso further provides that when the time is fixed by the court for removal of defects under clause (b) or (c) has expired, further time shall not be extended unless the court is satisfied that plaintiff was prevented by any cause of exceptional nature.

It is interesting to note that there are two consequences provided in the Code for not filing requisites and copies of plaint within seven days after the order of the Court under Order 7 Rule9. Firstly, the plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule11(f). Secondly, the suit can be dismissed under Order 9 Rule2. However, the remedy in case of rejection of plaint is provided in Order 7 Rule13 by way of presentation of fresh plaint. In case of dismissal of suit, the remedy lies in Order9 Rule 4 which provides that the plaintiff may bring fresh suit or the Court may restore suit to file. Meaning thereby that when the plaint is rejected under Order7 Rule 11 (f) the same cannot be restored by the Court and the only remedy to the plaintiff is presentation of fresh plaint. In term of the definition of Decree as given in Section2(2) it is deemed to include rejection of a plaint. Thus rejection of plaint is a decree of the court.

Some of the situations in which the plaint is rejected are discussed in details as follows:

a) The cause of action is not disclosed:

Under Order VII Rule 11(a), 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 Laxman Prasad v. Progigy Electronics Ltd., AIR 2008 SC 685 case, the Court observed that cause of action and applicability of law are two distinct different and independent things and one cannot be confused with the other. The expression ‘cause of action‘ has not been defined in the Code. It is however settled law that every suit presupposes the existence of a cause of action. If there is no cause of action, the plaint has to be rejected [Rule 11(a) of Order VII]. Stated simply, cause of action means a right to sue. It consists of material facts which are imperative for the plaintiff to allege and prove to succeed in the suit. The classic definition of the expression (cause of action) is found in the observations of Lord Brett in Cooke v. Gill, 1873 (8) CP 107: 42 LJ CP 98. A cause of action means every fact, which if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the Court. In other words, it is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. It must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such an act no cause of action can possibly accrue.

In Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society v. Ponniamman Educational Trust, (2012) 8 SCC 706 case, the Court held that if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action it should be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examination of the parties under order 10 of the code.

b) The Relief Claimed is Undervalued:

Under-valuation of the plaint would have the impact of circumvention around the law on court fees and also the rules related to pecuniary jurisdiction of the court. 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. In this case court is empowered to grant extra time to correct the error of under-valuation within the given time frame. If the plaintiff fails to do so within the time given by the court, then the plaint is rejected. Such rejection amounts to dismissing of the suit. A fresh plaint may be presented under Order 7 Rule 13 of the Code. If the plaintiff doesn’t correct even after that, then even in such a situation, by virtue of the proviso to Rule 11, court may further grant extra time in exceptional situations.

In Annapurna Dassi v. Sarat Chandra, AIR 1935 Cal 157 case, the Court held that if the relief claimed is undervalued and the valuation is not corrected within the time fixed by the court, the plaint must be rejected and such rejection is dismissal of the suit.

In Commercial Aviation & Travel Company v. Vimal Pannalal, AIR 1988 SC 1636 case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court said that the plaintiff cannot   whimsically choose a ridiculous figure for filling the suit where there        are positive materials and/or objective standards of valuation of the relief appearing on the face of the plaint. These materials or objective standards will also enable the Court to determine the valuation for the purpose of Order VlI, Rule 11(b), of the Code of Civil Procedure.

In Meenakshisundaram v. Venkatachalam, AIR 1979 SC 989 case, the Court said that in considering the question whether the suit is properly valued or not, the court must confine its attention to the plaint only and should not look at the other circumstances which may subsequently influence the judgment of the court as to the true value of the relief prayed for.

In Roop Lal Sathi v. Nachhatter Singh Gill, AIR 1982 SC 1559 case, the Court held that a part of the plaint cannot be rejected and if no cause of action is disclosed the plaint should be rejected as a whole.

c) The Plaint is Insufficiently Stamped:

As per Order VII Rule 11(c), where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned 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. However, as in case of under-valued plaint, court may grant extension of time here also under Rule 11(c) and the Proviso.

It must be noted here that under Rule 11(b) and (c) there is no automatic rejection of plaint. If the court comes to a conclusion that relief claim is undervalued or plaint is insufficiently stamped then the court is required to give sufficient time to the plaintiff to correct the valuation and deposit the requisite court fee. If upon giving sufficient time the plaintiff fails to correct the same then the power under these rules is to be exercised. If plaintiff cannot pay the court fees, he may apply to continue the suit as as indigent person (pauper).

In Mannan Lal v. Chhotaka Bibi, AIR 1971 SC 1374 case, the Court held that if the reqyuisite court-fee is paid within the time extended by the court, the suit or appealmust be treated as instituted from the date of presentation of the plaint or memorandum of appeal for the purpose of limitation as well as payment of court fee.

d) The Suit is Barred by Law:

In a case where the relied claimed is barred by law, the plaint shall be rejected by the court. 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. The most common example of the same is seen in cases where the plaintiff without following the mandatory requirement of 2-month prior notice under Section 80 CPC [herein, a two month-prior notice is to be given to the government before instituting suit against it], is presented, the same is liable to be rejected.

In Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh, SLP (C) No. 20068 of 2013 case, the cause of action had arisen when the plaintiff challenged the gift deed after a period of approximately twenty-two years from the date of the execution of the same. The plaintiff in the case has challenged the gift deed with the allegations that the gift deed is a showy one hence not binding. The Hon’ble Supreme Court after hearing both sides, in view of the facts of the case, held that this suit is unequivocally prohibited by The Law of Limitation. And, the plaint needs to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code.

In M/S Frost International Limited v. M/S Milan Developers and Builders (P) Limited, Civil Appeal No. 1689 of 2022 case the Apex Court observed that the plaint which, in essence, sought the relief of injuncting the defendant from instituting criminal prosecution against the plaintiff under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is liable to be rejected on the ground that such relief is barred by law under Section 41, Specific Relief Act, 1963.

In Prem Lala Nahata v. Chandi Prasad Sikaria, 2007 (2) SCC 551 case, the Court observed: “Order 7 Rule 11(d) speaks of the suit being barred by any law. According to Black‘s Law Dictionary, ‘bar’ means, a plea arresting a law suit or legal claim. It means as a verb, to prevent by legal objection. According to Ramanatha Aiyar‘s Law Lexicon, ‘bar’ is that which obstructs entry or egress; to exclude from consideration. It is therefore necessary to see whether a suit bad for misjoinder of parties or of causes of action is excluded from consideration or is barred entry for adjudication. As pointed out already, on the scheme of the Code, there is no such prohibition or a prevention at the entry of a suit defective for misjoinder of parties or of causes of action. The Court is still competent to try and decide the suit, though the Court may also be competent to tell the plaintiffs either to elect to proceed at the instance of one of the plaintiffs or to proceed with one of the causes of action. On the scheme of the Code of Civil Procedure, it cannot therefore be held that a suit barred for misjoinder of parties or of causes of action is barred by a law, here the Code. This may be contrasted with the failure to comply with Section 80 of the Code. In a case not covered by sub-Section (2) of Section 80, it is provided in sub-Section (1) of Section 80 that “no suit shall be instituted”. This is therefore a bar to the institution of the suit and that is why Courts have taken the view that in a case where notice under Section 80 of the Code is mandatory, if the averments in the plaint indicate the absence of a notice, the plaint is liable to be rejected. For, in that case, the entertaining of the suit would be barred by Section 80 of the Code. The same would be the position when a suit hit by Section 86 of the Code is filed without pleading the obtaining of consent of the Central Government if the suit is not for rent from a tenant. Not only are there no words of such import in Order 1 or Order 2 but on the other hand, Rule 9 of Order 1, Rules 1 and 3 of Order 1, and Rules 3 and 6 of Order 2 clearly suggest that it is open to the Court to proceed with the suit notwithstanding the defect of misjoinder of parties or misjoinder of causes of action and if the suit results in a decision, the same could not be set aside in appeal, merely on that ground, in view of Section 99 of the Code, unless the conditions of Section 99 are satisfied. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, can a suit bad for misjoinder of parties or misjoinder of causes of action be held to be barred by any law within the meaning of Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code. Thus, when one considers Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code with particular reference to clause (d), it is difficult to say that a suit which is bad for misjoinder of parties or misjoinder of causes of action, is a suit barred by any law. A procedural objection to the impleading of parties or to the joinder of causes of action or the frame of the suit, could be successfully urged only as a procedural objection which may enable the Court either to permit the continuance of the suit as it is or to direct the plaintiff or plaintiffs to elect to proceed with a part of the suit or even to try the causes of action joined in the suit as separate suits.”

e) The plaint is not filed in duplicate:

Order IV Rule 1 clearly indicates that for institution of suits the plaint has to be filed in duplicate. According to Order VII Rule 11(e), 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. 

f) the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9.

Plaintiff fails to present requisite copies of the plaint with summons as required by Rule 9. It means the plaintiff is under obligation to present copies of plaint for ach defendants and requisite fees for summons within 7 days.

g) Other Grounds of Rejection:

The grounds provided in the rule are not exhaustive i.e., the court may always evolve certain other defects in the plaint that may lead to its rejection. For e.g., the non-service of notice under Section 80 of CPC and the plaint being instituted in one such defect.

In Mayar H.K. Ltd. v. Owner and Parties Vessel M.V. Fortune Express, AIR 2006 SC 1828 case, the Court held that grounds of rejection of plaint specified in Rule 11 are not exhaustive. A plaint can be rejected on other relative grounds also. Where the plaint is found to be vexatious or meritless, not disclosing a clear right to sue, the court may reject the plaint.

Procedure of Rejection of Plaint:

According to Order VII Rule 12, where a Plaint is rejected, the Judge shall record an order to that effect with the reasons for such order. Thus, it states the procedure on rejecting the plaint so that it can be used as a precedent for future cases. 

In Parukutty Amma v. Ramaunni, AIR 1966 Ker 150 case, the Court held that the language provided in the Code is mandatory and if the court does not make an order regarding the same, the plaint will still be deemed to be on record of the Court.

In Bibhas Mohan Mukherjee v. Hari Charan Banerjee, AIR 1961 Cal 491 case, the Court 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. 

Under Order VII Rule 13 of C.P.C lays down that rejection of the plaint does not stop the presentation or filling of the fresh plaint. The rule provides for the consequence or a remedy for the order of rejection, wherein the plaintiff is allowed to institute a fresh plaint in respect of the same cause of action in the proper court subject to limitation. Therefore, although being a decree, Res-Judicata does not apply on such orders. Thus, the rejection of plaint being a deemed decree, the plaintiff has two remedies in case of rejection of plaint which are as follows

a) It is a decree and thus appealable under Order 41.

b) Plaintiff may bring a fresh suit in respect of same cause of action.

In Meera Sinha v. Girija Sinha, AIR 2009 Pat 19 case, the Court held that an order rejection a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code is a decree and such a decree is not revisable under Section 115 of the Code but is appealable under Section 96 of the Code.

Difference Between Dismissal of the suit and Rejection of the plaint:

Dismissal of the suit	Rejection of the plaint
There are no specific grounds on which a suit can be dismissed.	Rejection of plaint occurs only under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code.
Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure states certain grounds on the basis of which a suit can be dismissed.	Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure states the grounds on which a plaint can be rejected.
If the summons has not been duly served upon the defendant, the suit is liable to be dismissed. Another ground is that if neither party appears on the day of hearing, then the Court can make an order dismissing the suit.	The plaint is rejected on the grounds which have been mentioned under the said Order.
For dismissal on a preliminary issue, the Court is entitled and liable to look into the entire documents including those furnished by the Defendant.	There is no effect of written statement from defendant for rejection of suit

Conclusion:

The real object of Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code is to keep out of Courts irresponsible law suits.  Every suit presupposes the existence of a cause of action. If there is no cause of action, the plaint has to be rejected [Rule 11(a) of Order VII]. Return is different from rejection and it needs to be noted. Return of plaint does not connote that the plaint had mistaken or that the rules for drafting the plaint were not conformed to. It simply means that the court is not empowered to try the suit for which the plaint is filed. On the contrary, the plaint is rejected if the essential requirements of a plaint are not provided in the plaint or if the certain elements are vague and ambiguous.