Rejection of Plaint Under Order 7 and Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code
Posted on February 22, 2024
Rejection of Plaint – Order VII and Rule XI:
The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases-
(a) where it 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;
(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;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law:
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.
Supreme Court judgments on rejection of plaint Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code
Here are a few significant Supreme Court judgments regarding the rejection of plaints under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC):
Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar vs. Krishnaji Dattatraya Bapat (1970):
The Supreme Court held that a plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 if it does not disclose a cause of action, meaning that the facts stated in the plaint do not constitute the cause of action on which the plaintiff seeks relief.
Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal & Anr. (1977):
In this case, the Supreme Court held that the power to reject a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 should be exercised sparingly and only in clear cases where the plaint is manifestly vexatious, frivolous, or without any merit.
Hari Singh vs. Sukhbir Singh (1988):
The court held that the power to reject a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 is not to be exercised in a routine manner, but only in cases where the plaint is so defective that it cannot be cured by amendment.
M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors. (1998):
The court emphasized that the power to reject a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 should be sparingly exercised and only in cases where the pleadings are manifestly absurd, frivolous, or vexatious.
Sopan Sukhdeo Sable vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner & Ors. (2004):
The court held that while deciding an application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11, the court should not go into the merits of the case or embark upon a detailed inquiry into the facts alleged in the plaint.
Ramesh B. Desai vs. Bipin Vadilal Mehta & Anr. (2006):
The court held that while deciding an application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11, the court should not go into the merits of the case or embark upon a detailed inquiry into the facts alleged in the plaint.
Laxmi Dyechem vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. (2012):
The court held that the power to reject a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 is not to be exercised in a routine manner, but only in cases where the plaint is so defective that it cannot be cured by amendment.
Krishan Lal vs. Union of India (2014):
The court reiterated that the power to reject a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 should be exercised judiciously and with caution, and that the court should give the plaintiff an opportunity to amend the plaint if the defect can be cured.
These judgments provide guidance on the principles governing the rejection of plaints under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, emphasizing the need for courts to exercise this power judiciously and only in clear cases where the plaint is incurably defective or frivolous.
Article Written by
Pathakota Venkata Mohana Rao B.Com, LL.M
Advocate at High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana
Designated Partner at VENSO LAW OFFICES LLP
Office No: +91 967 967 6450
E-mail ID: vensolawofficesllp@gmail.com
