Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, lays down grounds for the rejection of a plaint. The grounds include non-disclosure of a cause of action; non-filing in duplicate; and where the suit appears to be barred by any law.
The judgments elaborate upon the grounds of rejection of a plaint and the nature of the provision laid down under Order VII Rule 11. As per the court, the provision for rejection of a plaint is mandatory and the existence of either ground will lead to its rejection.
Is a plaint liable to be rejected if the reliefs sought under it are liable to be rejected?
Can a plaint be rejected if the limitation is a mixed question of law and fact?
Is res judicata a ground for the rejection of a plaint?
Is the provision of Order VII Rule 11 mandatory in nature?
The Supreme Court has stated that if a court decides that none of the reliefs requested in the plaint may be granted to the plaintiff under the law, the plaint must be dismissed since it is frivolous and wastes judicial time.
The Supreme Court has ruled that if the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, a plaint cannot be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The Supreme Court stated that res judicata cannot be used as a basis for dismissing a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure if the plaint does not disclose any facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that it is precluded by res judicata principles.
The Supreme Court has ruled that Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure’s clause on the rejection of plaint is compulsory in nature because it stipulates that a “plaint shall be rejected [...].” The court has no choice but to dismiss the plaint if it does not state a cause of action or if the complaint is prohibited or barred by law.
Supreme Court of India
Rajendra Bajoria vs Hemant Kumar Jalan on 21 September, 2021
Author: B.R. Gavai
Bench: L. Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna, B.R. Gavai
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 58195822 OF 2021
[Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 27792782 of 2019]
RAJENDRA BAJORIA AND OTHERS ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
HEMANT KUMAR JALAN
AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals challenge the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta dated 14 th September 2018, thereby allowing the appeals being APO Nos.
491 and 520 of 2017 filed by the respondentsdefendants, challenging the order passed by the Single Judge of the High Court of Calcutta dated 22nd September 2017. Vide the said order dated 22nd September 2017, the Single Judge had
dismissed G.A. Nos.1688 and 1571 of 2017 filed by the original defendants, seeking dismissal of the suit, alternatively for rejection of the plaint as well as for revocation of the leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent in the instant suit being C.S. No.79 of 2017.
3. A partnership firm namely ‘Soorajmull Nagarmull’ (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the partnership firm’) was constituted under a Deed of Partnership dated 6th December 1943. Baijnath Jalan, Mohanlal Jalan, Babulal Jalan, Sewbhagwan Jalan, Keshabdeo Jalan, Nandkishore Jalan, Deokinandan Jalan, Chiranjilal Bajoria and Kishorilal Jalan were the partners in the partnership firm. It is not in dispute that none of the partners are alive. Plaintiff Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the sons of Late Chiranjilal Bajoria, who died on 31 st December 1981. Plaintiff Nos. 4 and 5 are the sons of Late Deokinandan Jalan, who died on 12th July 1997. Plaintiff No. 6 is the son of Late Mohanlal Jalan, who died on 1st May 1982. The defendants are the legal heirs of the other original partners in the partnership firm.
4. A civil suit being C.S. No. 79 of 2017 came to be filed by the plaintiffs before the Calcutta High Court seeking, inter alia, the following reliefs: “(a) Decree for declaration that the plaintiffs along with the defendants are entitled to the assets and properties of the firm "Soorajmull Nagarmull" as the heirs of the original partners of the reconstituted firm under the partnership deed dated 6 December, th 1943, in the share of the said original partners as mentioned in paragraph 3 above;
(b) Decree for declaration that the plaintiffs along with the defendants are consequently entitled to represent the firm in all proceedings before the concerned authorities of the State of Bihar for the acquisition of its Bhagalpur land;
(c) Decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant No.1 or any of the other defendants from in any manner representing or holding themselves out to be the authorised representative of the firm or the repository of all its authority, moneys assets and properties or from seeking to represent the firm in its dealings and transactions in respect of any of its assets and properties including the acquisition proceeding of the firm's Bhagalpur land or from receiving any monies on behalf of the firm, whether
on account of compensation for its Bhagalpur land or otherwise;
(d) Decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendant No. 1 to disclose full particulars of all assets and properties of the firm, full particulars of all its dealings and transactions including any dealing or transaction concerning any asset or property of the firm, and full accounts of the firm for the purpose of its dissolution;
(e) Decree for the dissolution of the firm Soorajmull Nagarmull and for the winding up of its affairs upon realising the assets and properties of the firm, collecting all moneys due to the firm, applying the same in paying the debts of the firm, if any, in paying the capital contributed by any partner and thereafter by dividing the residue amongst the heirs of the original partners in the shares to which they were entitled to the profits of the firm in terms of the Partnership Deed dated 6th December, 1943."
5. In the said suit, the defendants filed two applications being G.A. Nos. 1688 and 1571 of 2017, inter alia, seeking dismissal of the suit, or in the alternative, rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action, and the relief as claimed in the plaint could not be granted. It was also urged on behalf of the defendants that the
suit was filed beyond the period of limitation, and as such, was also liable to be rejected on the said ground. The Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 22 nd September 2017, dismissed the said applications. Insofar as the ground with regard to limitation is concerned, the Single Judge found that the issue of limitation was a mixed question of fact and law and did not consider the prayer of the defendants on that ground. Being aggrieved thereby, the original defendants filed appeals being APO Nos. 491 and 520 of 2017 before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment and order dated 14 th September 2018 held that the reliefs, as claimed in the plaint, could not be granted, and therefore, while allowing the appeals, rejected the plaint being C.S. No. 79 of 2017. It, however, observed that, as provided under Order VII Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the “CPC”), the order of rejection of the plaint shall not of its own force preclude the plaintiffs from presenting a fresh plaint in respect of the same cause of action.
Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeals.
6. We have heard Shri Gopal Jain, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1, and Shri K.V. Viswanathan and Shri Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2, 3, 7 to 9, 11, 12 and 16 to 21.
7. Shri Gopal Jain, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, submitted that the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta has grossly erred in allowing the appeals and reversing the wellreasoned judgment and order passed by the Single Judge of the High Court of Calcutta. Shri Jain submitted that the Single Judge, after reading the averments in the plaint, had rightly come to the conclusion that the plaint discloses cause of action, and as such, could not be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. He submitted that the Division Bench, in the impugned judgment and order, has almost conducted a minitrial to find out as to whether the relief as claimed in the plaint could be granted or not. He submitted that such an exercise is impermissible while considering an
application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. The learned Senior Counsel, relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead Through Legal Representatives and Others1, submitted that the power conferred on the court to terminate a civil action is a drastic one. He submitted that such a power cannot be routinely exercised. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that for finding out as to whether the cause of action exists or not, it is necessary to read the averments made in the plaint in their entirety and not in piecemeal. Shri Jain, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment and order is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.
Download complete judgement by clicking on the button given below >>
The filing of a plaint is a requirement for the commencement of a lawsuit. It is essentially a statement of claims that the court treats as a repository of facts. As a result, every court is required to examine the plaint and determine if it is admissible or not.
The judgments discuss civil laws. Order VII Rule 11 of CPC lays down certain grounds on which a plaint is liable to be rejected. The provision is mandatory and if the plaint appears to consist of any ground as laid down under the Rule, the court will reject such plaint.
Initiating a civil suit can be a long, difficult, and technical process, so it is recommended that you hire a civil lawyer. A civil lawyer is an expert in this field and will assist and guide you throughout the process of drafting the plaint to ensure that the same is admissible. They will assist you in filing your case, creating drafts and paperwork, advocating for you in court, and assisting you in gathering evidence. As a result, the advice of a lawyer is crucial.
648+ Lawyers are online 
