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:

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.

The post Rejection of Plaint appeared first on The Fact Factor.

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 Rules 10, 10A, and 10B of the Civil Procedure Code, deals with the return of plaint. The CPC empowers the civil courts to return the plaint to the plaintiff if the court believes that the plaint is not properly filed or any suit presented before it has no jurisdiction to try it.

CPC provides that the plaint shall at any stage of the suit be returned to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted. Once the Court has held that it has no pecuniary jurisdiction, it should not have dismissed the suit but is bound to return it for presentation to proper Court. The returned plaint will start afresh when it is presented to the proper court. The freshly filed plaint in the proper court is not the continuation of the plaint presented in the improper court. The order of the court relating to return of the plaint is appealable.

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.

Grounds for Return of Plaint:

The court shall return a plaint on the following grounds:

• Court has no jurisdiction, or
• There is a valid objection to jurisdiction

According to Order VII Rule 10 (1), subject to the provisions of Rule 10A, the plaint shall at any stage of the suit be returned to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted. Thus, according to Order VII Rule 10(1) of CPC, a plaint is returned on the sole ground of lack of jurisdiction with the concerned court.

The court can lack jurisdiction on three occasions mentioned below;

• Territorial Jurisdiction
• Pecuniary Jurisdiction
• Subject matter Jurisdiction

For example, a plaint is filed in the city civil court by A against his employer for unlawful retrenchment from a job. Since there are specific labour courts to deal with these cases, the city civil court does not have the jurisdiction to adjudge and hence, plaint can be returned by the court. Under this rule, the court can return the plaint for lack of jurisdiction but the plaintiff has every right to file the plaint again in the appropriate forum.

In Kallu v. Phudan, AIR 1946 All 488 case, the Court held that where a suit filed in a revenue court is not triable by that court, the court should not dismiss the suit, but return the plaint to be presented to, the proper court.

In Hanamanthappa v. Chandrashekhrappa, (1997) 9 SCC 688 case, the Court held that on the return of plaint, the suit should be instituted when plaint is presented in the proper court. It will not be regarded as a continuation of the old suit. It will be treated as a fresh plaint subject to limitation, pecuniary jurisdiction and payment of court-fees.

In Gopi Krishna v. Avil Bose, AIR 1965 Cal 59 case, the Calcutta High Court said that “at any stage of suit” must mean at any stage of the suit before judgment therein is delivered.

In Visweswara v. Nair, (1912) 35 Mad 567 case, If court has no jurisdiction, it should return the plaint even though the claim is undervalued; and when presented to the proper court, the later court is bound to give credit for the fee levied by the former court.

Explanation attached to the rule states that “For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that a Court of appeal or revision may direct, after setting aside the decree passed in a suit, the return of the plaint under this sub-Rule.”

If the Court has jurisdiction over some of the causes of action and thus has jurisdiction over a portion of the plaint there should be no reason why it cannot allow the plaintiff to amend the plaint to lop off those portions beyond its grip and proceed with the portions within its grasp. Where the Court finds that the plaint comprises causes of action within its jurisdiction as well as causes of action outside its jurisdiction, neither the suit can be dismissed as a whole nor the plaint can be returned as a whole.

In Smt. Sheela Adhikari v. Rabindra Nath Adhikari, AIR 1988 Cal. 273 case, the court held that the plaint, if it is to be returned, must be returned either as a whole or not at all and it is not for the Court to make a dissection of the plaint and then to retain a part and to return a part.

In Secretary of State v. Natabar, AIR 1927 Pat 254 case, a suit against two defendants, cognizable by a civil court as against the first and by the revenue court as against the second was filed in a civil court. The Patna High Court, directed that the plaint be returned for presentation to the revenue court, and that a copy of it should be  retained on the record for trial of the suit against the first defendant.

In Latu v. Rani Mahalaxmi Bai, AIR 1942 All 130 case, the Allahabad High Court indicated two alternatives: either to keep original plaint on the record and give a certified copy for presentation to the revenue court, or other proper court or dismiss that part of the suit which is beyond its jurisdiction and proceed to try the rest or strike out the bad part under Order VI Rule 16.

Procedure for Returning the Plaint:

The procedure for returning the plaint depends upon two circumstances. First, where the court in the initial hearings identify that it does not have the jurisdiction to try the case and it feels that the plaint needs to be returned and second, where the defendant has appeared and after which the court believes that plaint needs to be returned for lack of jurisdiction.

Case 1: Where the court in the initial hearings identify that it does not have the jurisdiction to try the case and it feels that the plaint needs to be returned

In this case, the Order VII Rule 10(2) mandates the court to endorse the following particulars on the plaint:

• Date on which the plaint was initially presented by the plaintiff.
• Date on which the plaint is being returned by the court. The returning date is not the one where the court formed the opinion but when the court actually returned the plaint.
• Cause title, i.e., the details of the party which presented the plaint.
• Reasons that compelled the court to return the plaint

In Moneys Transports v. Tanjore, AIR 1979 Mad 196 case, the Court held that the requirement of sub-rule 2 are mandatory and without the endorsement required by the sub-rule, the plaint cannot be returned and cannot be presented to the proper court. This means that the proceedings for the return of the plaint came to an end only when an endorsement was actually made on the plaint. Then only can the plaint be said to be ready for being returned for presentation to the proper Court.

Case2: where the defendant has appeared and after which the court believes that plaint needs to be returned for lack of jurisdiction.

Order VII Rule 10A applies to the situation where the plaint is returned after the defendant(s) has/have appeared before the court. The following list summarises the procedure that needs to be followed while returning the plaint:

1. The court must intimate the plaintiff through registered post or any authorized manner that the plaint is to be returned for lack of jurisdiction.
2. The plaintiff needs to appear before the court either personally or through his counsel
3. The plaintiff is required to inform the court as to where the plaintiff proposes to file the new plaint after it is returned by this court.
4. The court may fix the date of appearance of plaintiff and defendant before the competent court where the new plaint is to be filed.
5. The court may, at the request of the plaintiff, serve notices to the plaintiff and defendant requiring them to appear before the competent Court and intimating them of the return of plaint.
6. This notice shall serve as summon and no new summon will be required to be issued by the court where the returned plaint is filed

In Vicco Laboratories Bombay v. Hindustan Rimmer, AIR 1979 Del 114 case, the Court held that if after the defendant has appeared, the court is of the view that it has no jurisdiction and should, therefore, return the plaint, it must give intimation of such decision to the plaintiff. The plaintiff, thereupon, may make an application described in sub-rule 2. The ‘may’ in sub-rule 2 shows that it is his discretion to make or not make an application. It is not incumbent on him to do so. But if he does make the application and follows the procedure there laid down, the court shall fix the date of appearance by the parties in the court in which the plaint is to be presented and give notice of such date to the parties. Since the defendant by such notice is made awre of the suit against him and the date when he has to appear, the notice is treated as summons. As plaintiff choose the procedure laid down in sub-rule 2 and obtain an orderm, he naturally can have no right to appeal against the order returning the plaint. Application by him under sub-rule 2 is treayed as acceptance of the order of return.

In George Shipping Co. Ltd. v. MV Irene Pa Foreign Flagged Vessel, AIR 1997 Bom 280 case, the Court held that on return of plaint, the procedure laid down in rules 10 and 10A are to be followed. Fresh suit for the same cause of action is not maintainable.

Appeal Against Return of Plaint:

A Plaintiff can file an appeal from the order under Rule 10 of Order 7. Such appeal is maintainable under Order 43 Rule 1 (a). But where the plaint was returned on an application made by the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule10A (2) such appeal is not maintainable.

In Straw Products Ltd. v. Municipal Board Bhopal, AIR 1959 MP 253 case, the Court held that an appeal lies from an order returning a plaint to be presented to the proper court, whether the order is made by the court of first instance (Order 43 Rule 1(a)) or by the court of first appeal in the exercise of powers conferred upon it by Section 107 of CPC. But no second appeal lies from the order of the first Appellant Court (Nilkanth v. Balwant, AIR 1925 Bom 431)

Power of Appellant Court to Transfer Suit to the Proper Court:

According to Order VII Rule 10 B(1), where, on an appeal against an order for the return of plaint, the Court hearing the appeal confirms such order, the Court of appeal may, if the plaintiff by an application so desires, while returning the plaint, direct plaintiff to file the plaint, subject to the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), in the Court in which the suit should have been instituted, (whether such Court is within or without the State in which the Court hearing the appeal is situated), and fit a date for the appearance of the parties in the Court in which the plaint is directed to be filed and when the date is so fixed it shall not be necessary for the Court in which the plaint is filed to serve the defendant with the summons for appearance in the suit, unless that Court in which the plaint is filed, for reasons to be recorded, otherwise directs. According to clause 2, the direction made by the Court under sub-rule (1), shall be without any prejudice to the rights of the parties to question the jurisdiction of the Court, in which the plaint is filed, to try the suit.

This rule has been added to Order VII with a view to empowering the court hearing an appeal against an order of return of plaint to direct that, instead of the plaint being returned, the suit may be transferred to the court in which it should have been instituted. Further, the provisions for abolish the necessary for serving the summons on the defendants, where the order of return of plaint was made after the appearance of the defendants in the suit.

In Latadevi v. Ramnath, AIR 1987 Bom 364 case, the Court held that the provision contained in R. 10B specify a detailed procedure and that too of a mandatory nature.

Conclusion:

As per the above-stated matter, it can be said, that jurisdiction of the court is necessary, to obtain adjudication and the decision of court without jurisdiction is a nullity in the eyes of the law, and not binding of anyone, though this is subject to the exceptions of section 21 of CPC. 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. on the return of plaint, the suit should be instituted when plaint is presented in the proper court. It will not be regarded as a continuation of the old suit. It will be treated as a fresh plaint subject to limitation, pecuniary jurisdiction and payment of court-fees.

The post Return of Plaint by the Court (Order VII Rules 10, 10A and 10B) appeared first on The Fact Factor.

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 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, deals with the admission of plaint.

A plaint, along with a copy thereof for the purpose of drawing up of a decree at the relevant stage, may be presented at any time during the Court hours to the Clerk of the Court or to such Officer as the Court appoints in this behalf under Order IV, Rule Civil Procedure Code, or in the absence of such Officer, to the Judge himself. Immediately after it is presented, the date of presentation shall be endorsed thereon and an acknowledgement thereof shall be given to the party or Advocate presenting it.

Note 1: If a plaint is presented beyond Court hours, it will be in the discretion of the Judge to accept it or not.

Note 2: The officer receiving the plaint is forbidden to refuse to receive plaints, applications, etc., presented to him, on the ground that he is not able, at that time, to check them.

If there are more than one plaintiff who were permitted to file suit but only few of them instituted the suit and remaining joined afterwards, then the suit should be deemed to be instituted on the date of the initial presentation of the plaint.

In Madhaorao v. Mohanlal, AIR 1922 Nag 167 case, the Court held that if a plaint is presented at the residence of Judge after Court hours it is valid.

The next step is the examination of the plaint in order to determine whether it should be admitted; or rejected (Order VII Rule 11); or returned for the presentation to the proper Court (Order VII Rule 10) or after strictly following the procedure envisaged in new Rule 10-A, Order VII of Civil Procedure Code, as amended by Act, 104 of 1976 or returned for amendment on the ground that it is not framed as required by the law.

Examination of the Plaint Before Admission by the Court:

On the presentation or receipt of a plaint, the Court should examine it with special reference to the following points:

1. whether the plaint contains the particulars specified in Order VII, Rule 1, and conforms to the other rules of pleadings in Orders VI and VII and rules made by the High Court thereunder;
2. whether the plaintiff has filed the names and address of the parties in the prescribed form in the Title;
3. whether the plaint is duly signed and verified (Order VI Rules 14 and 15);
4. whether it complies with the requirements of Order VII Rules 2, 4, and 6;
5. whether it is properly valued and stamped;
6. if the suit is with respect to agricultural land, then whether a certified copy of extract of Record of Rights is produced or not or when the suit is for immovable property other than agricultural land, then whether extract of City Survey is produced or not;
7. whether the provisions of Order II, Rules 4 and 5 are infringed.
8. whether necessary court fees have been paid;
9. whether necessary postal service charges for service of summons on defendants is paid;
10. whether the plaintiff has attached documents related to suits in his possession and powers to the plaint (if any) accompanied by lists in the prescribed form and are in order;
11. whether the plaintiff has stated in his plaint regarding the documents on which he relates his claim and are not in his possession and a statement in whose possession or power they are;
12. whether the grounds disclosing how the suit claim is within limitation are pleaded properly;
13. whether the suit is within the jurisdiction of the Court or must be returned for presentation to proper Court (Order VII, Rule 10);
14. whether the provisions of Rules 2 and 4 of Order III as to production of a power of attorney and Vakalatnama with the plaint are complied with or not.
15. whether the plaintiff has filed a proceeding containing his address for service during the litigation as required by Rule 19 of Order VII, Order Vi Rule 14-A;
16. whether there is prima facie, any non-joinder or mis-joinder of parties, or mis-joinder of causes of action;
17. whether any of the parties to the suit are minors and, if so, whether they are properly represented;
18. whether the plaint is liable to be rejected for any of the reasons given in Order VII, Rule 11;
19. in money suits, whether the plaintiff has stated the precise amount he claims;
20. whether local jurisdiction and pecuniary Jurisdiction of the filing Court is as per rules.

Order VII Rule 9 provides for the admission of plaint. It states that where the Court orders that the summons be served on the defendants in the manner provided in rule 9 of Order V, it will direct the plaintiff to present as many copies of the plaint on plain paper as there are defendants within seven days from the date of such order along with requisite fee for service of summons on the defendants.

It simply requires the plaintiff to file copies of the plaint and pay requisite court fees for the service of summons and the defendants within 7 days. The chief ministerial officer of the Court shall sign such list and copies or statements if, on examination, he finds them to be correct.

Conclusion:

The plaintiff shall endorse on the plaint, or annex thereto, a list of the documents (if any) which he has produced along with it. On admission of plaint the plaintiff shall present, within such time as may be fixed by the Court or extended by it from time to time, as many copies on plain paper of the plaint as there are defendants, unless the Court by reason of the length of the plaint or the number of the defendants, or for any other sufficient reason, permits him present a like number of concise statements of the nature of the claim made, or of the relief claimed in the suit, in which case he shall present such statements.

The post Admission of Plaint (Order VII Rule 9) appeared first on The Fact Factor.