PRINCIPLES OF REJECTION OF PLAINT: ORDER VII RULE 11 CPC

 

 

PRINCIPLES OF REJECTION OF PLAINT: ORDER VII Rule 11 CPC

The Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 clearly stipulates that civil cases shall be instituted in all matters except if it is barred by law or by necessary implication of law. Of course, the same shall be subject to the provision of Code itself. The Limitation Act 1963 being one such enactment in this regard. The provision of Order VII Rule 10 Code of Civil procedure and Order VII Rule 11 of the Code   is also a pointer.  The plaint, if presente3d before a competent court of jurisdiction, the same shall either be accepted or rejected or returned. In case, it is accepted, then the process of trial shall ensue, else, the plaint may be returned for filing of it before appropriate court. When the plaint is rejected, the suit in effect is dismissed but within the parameter of Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil procedure.

The filing of a Plaint is a formal statement of claims, containing the concise facts on which the claim is based. The Court is mandated to analyze and appreciate the Plaint, on the standpoint of law and shall proceed with the same, if in order.

THE PROVISIONS

Rule 11 under Order VII of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 delineates the grounds, the Court shall reject a Plaint on the premise. These are:

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 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;

d.   where the Suit appears from the statement in the Plaint to be barred by any law;

e.   where it is not filed in duplicate;

f.    where the Plaintiff fails comply with the provision of Rule 9 (which specifies the procedure after admission of the Plaint).

STAGE WHEN REJECTION OF PLAINT CAN BE SOUGHT

 

There is no straight jacket formula as regards the fact of raising a plea and filing of application for seeking rejection of plaint. The same may be done before conclusion of arguments, if the plaint conforms to the specifications under Rule 11 (a) to (e) of Order VII of Code of Civil Procedure.

Needless to say that the plaint may also be rejected by the court on its motion and even without any application filed in this regard, if the court finds the suit conforming to the prescription of Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil procedure. If the suit is predicated on frivolous plea, then too, the same may be construed as lacking cause of action and the plaint can be rejected.

 

In this regard, the hon’ble Delhi High Court has held in a matter captioned as  Ms Juhi Chawla & Ors. vs Science And Engineering Research & Ors on 4th June, 2021, bearing CS(OS) 262/2021 & I.A. Nos.6904/2021, 6906/2021,                              6907/2021,  6908/2021 that that the plaint was stuffed with unnecessary Scandalous, frivolous and vexatious averments" which are liable to be struck down..

The plaint was predicated on seeking rollout of 5G Technology in India, being allegedly environmentally undesirably. The costs of Rs 20,00,000/- was also imposed for abusing process of law.

The hon’ble High Court in the above refer4ence has observed as under:

(i)                  Plaint was akin to abuse of process of court;

(ii)                The plaint was raised for publicity;

(iii)              Even the link of the court hearing was published on social media;

(iv)               No notice u/s 80 (1) of Code of Civil procedure was sent to Union of India, a pre-requisite for instituting a suit against State; Thus, no leave to institute suit (under Section 80 CPC) or to sue in representative capacity.

(v)                Plaint was otherwise defective and not maintainable.

(vi)               The plaint was not verified in accordance with law and is contrary to the mandate of Order VI Rule 15 of Code of Civil Procedure

(vii)             If there is no personal knowledge of averments or if the plaint is merely based on legal advise, the same cannot be  held to be maintainable.

(viii)           There were several lapses in the plaint and the plaint did not conform to the requirement of pleading as laid down in Code of Civil Procedure.

The Section 35 A of Code of Civil Procedure contains provision of Compensatory costs in respect of false or vexatious claims or defence.  False or vexatious claim to the knowledge of a party, who raises a claim or defence and owing to that reason, if such a claim or defence is disallowed in whole or in part, then, upon recording of reason of it, an order for the payment by way by way of compensation could be awarded and hon’ ble   High Court had acted accordingly.

MANDATORY STATUTORY COMPLIANCE

That as regards Section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure in a matter captioned as State of A.P Vs Pioneer Builders (2006) 12, SCC 119 the Supreme Court has held that service of notice under Section 80 is a condition precedent for the institution of a suit against the Government. It is further held that it is with a view to secure advancement of justice and for securing public good and with a view to avoid unnecessary litigation.

Moreover, in a matter reported as State of Kerala vs Sudhir Kumar Sharma  (2013) 10 SCC 178, the hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a suit filed without compliance of Section 80(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be regularized by simply filing an application under Section 80(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The Section 91 of CPC cannot be invoked to cover the alleged wrongful acts of state with evidence and no leave under Section 91(1)(b) of the CPC as a matter of right can be claimed. The leave may be claimed only, if:

(i)                      Order VI Rule 2(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure which mandates that the plaint shall contain statements of material facts in a concise form and no evidence is to be incorporated in plaint

(ii)                    Order VI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure and its terms are to be complied with. That mean the contents of any document shall not be set out in the plaint, unless the precise words of the document or any part thereof are material.

(iii)                  The claim of suit of representative capacity can be made out under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC or to maintain the suit without the aforesaid leave/permission, only, if suit is not defective.

(iv)                   The plaint is required to be not only concise, but should be bereft of any unnecessary scandalous, frivolous and vexatious averments , as in that case, the plaint shall be liable to be struck down under Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(v)                     Multiple cause of action cannot be clubbed and several defendants without any cause worth its name cannot be arraigned. The same shall be contrary to principles of Order I Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure and contrary to the principles of Order II Rule 3 of CPC.

(vi)                   The plaintiffs cannot claim any inquiry to be conducted by the Court into the averments made in the plaint which is contrary to the prescription of law

(vii)                 Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 deals with declaratory suits. A person entitled to any legal character can institute a suit against another person who denies or is interested to deny his right. In the present case, the plaintiffs never approached the defendants claiming any right and therefore, there was no occasion for the defendants to respond or deny to the plaintiffs alleged rights. In that view of the matter, the maintainability of the declaratory reliefs sought by the plaintiffs is doubtful.

(viii)               Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 deals with mandatory injunctions. The twin requirements of that section are the existence of an obligation of the defendant towards the plaintiff and the breach thereof by the defendant. Both these requirements are not fulfilled. The maintainability of the mandatory injunctions sought by the plaintiffs are, therefore, doubtful.

(ix)                  The plaintiffs have not valued the suit properly for the purpose of Court-fees.

(x)                    XII. The plaintiffs have not given the mandatory notice under Section 80(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(xi)                  The entire suit filed by the plaintiffs is under Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Order XXVII-A and Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, no application was filed along with this suit to seek the leave of the Court to institute this suit.

The plaintiffs have abused and misused the process of law which has resulted in waste of judicial time. The cost of Rs.20 Lakhs is imposed on the plaintiffs and they were directed to deposit the cost of Rs.20 Lakhs with Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) within one week, failing which DSLSA could recover the same from the plaintiffs in accordance with law. DSLSA was directed to utilize the funds for the victims of road accidents.

The aforesaid case, being a very recent case and have dealt with the issue of rejection of plaint in lucid and comprehensive way, thus, the same has been made part of the write up herein and the same is being furthered here-in-after.

WHEN PLAINT CAN BE REJECTED?

It is no longer res integra that a Plaint may be rejected by the Court of its own motion or upon filing of an application in that behalf by the defendant/s. The application can be preferred at any stage of the proceedings and before conclusion of trial.

(i)          The hon’ble Supreme Court has held in Sopan Sukhdeo Sable & Ors. Vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner & Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 137 has held that the Trial Court can exercise the power at any stage of the suit i.e  before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendants or at any time before the conclusion of the trial. The averments in the plaint and documents in the plaint are considered as relevant and the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement shall be meaningless for the purpose of decision on the application seeking rejection of plaint.

(ii)        The hon’ble Supreme Court in a matter reported as Sopan Sukhdeo Sable & Ors. Vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner & Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 137, has also held in similar line. It is further held that once an application seeking rejection of Plaint is moved by a party or parties, it is incumbent on the court to decide that before proceeding further. In case, the application is rejected, the Defendant shall be entitled to file his Written Statement thereafter. But once an application for rejection is filed, the Court has to dispose of the same before proceeding with the trial. 

(iii)       The Supreme Court has held in a matter reported as R. K. Roja Vs U. S. Rayudu & Anr., (2016) 14 SCC 275 that in case a plaint is rejected under Order VII rule 11 of CPC, that hall be treated as deemed decree. as defined under Section 2 (2) of the Code. In such an event, the rejection of plaint shall be an appealable order. Of course, a party can raise fresh plaint, if otherwise, it is held that the plaint did not meet certain stipulation.

(iv)      Vikram Chandhok Vs Rashmi Skadegaard & Anr DLT  20(2015 )DLT  597  DB

The hon’ble Division bench of Delhi High court has held that only plaint and accompanied documents are required to be seen for the purpose of decision on application seeking rejection of plaint.

(v)                T. Arivandanam Vs. T.V. Satyapal & Anr., 1978 SCR (1) 742

The hon’ble Supreme Court has ruled that if the Plaint is manifestly vexatious, meritless and groundless, in the sense that it does not disclose a clear right to sue, it would be right and proper to exercise power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code.

(vi)       Apart from the above, the hon’ble Supreme Court observed in Raptakos Brett & Co.Ltd. Vs. Ganesh Property, [1998 (7) SCC 184] that entirety of the averments in the Plaint have to be taken into account while considering a plea seeking rejection of Plaint. While disposing of a case titled and there cannot be any compartmentalization, dissection, segregation and inversions of the language of various paragraphs in the Plaint. If such a course is adopted it would run counter to the cardinal canon of interpretation according to which a pleading has to be read as a whole to ascertain its true import. It is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage and to read it out of context.

The intention of the party is to be gathered from the tenor and terms of pleadings. The pleadings has to be taken as a whole. However, no pedantic approach should be adopted to defeat justice on some hyper technicalities. The av4erments in the plaint shall be germane for ascertaining whether the plaint discloses any cause of action.

 Saleem Bhai & Ors. Vs. State Of Maharashtra & Ors., (2003) 1 SCC 557

 

It was held that 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.
When a Plaint contains clear pleadings spelling out the cause of action, the question whether such a cause of action is true or not cannot be the scope of enquiry in an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

Whether there is any suppression of material facts, can be ascertained only from the pleadings made in the Written Statement and the evidence to be adduced by the parties.

 

(vii)     NO PIECE$MEAL REJECTION OF PLAINT IS PERMISSIBLE

The plaint cannot be rejected in part. The hon’ble Supreme Court in a matter reported as Sejal Glass Limited Vs. Navilan Merchants Private Limited, AIR 2017 SC 4477.has held that a Plaint can either be rejected as a whole or not at all. Though,  Order VI Rule 16 of the Code, deals with striking out pleadings. Further, if the plaint may be barred against one defendant, but may not be so as regards other defendants, the plaint cannot be rejected and such defendant can seek deletion of their name from array of parties as per the principles of Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of Code of Civil Procedure.

 

(viii)    In a matter reported as Madhav Prasad Aggarwal Vs Axis Bank, 2019 (3) Law Herald (SC) 2012, the Supreme Court has held that undoubtedly, the Plaint should be rejected in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC on account of non-compliance of mandatory requirements or if there is legal defect at the time of presentation of the Plaint attributable to clauses (a) to (f) of Rule 11 of Order 7 of CPC.

 

(ix)       Raghwendra Sharan Singh Vs Ram Prasanna Singh, AIR 2019 SC 1430,

 

If upon the bare perusal of the averments in the Plaint, it is found that the Suit is clearly barred by law of limitation, the same can be rejected in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the CPC. In case, the Plaintiff tries to cover  their misdeed by way of by clever  drafting, the same shall not rescue a plaintiff.

The Suit appears to be barred by any law Where a Suit appears from the statement in the Plaint to be barred by any law, it is liable to be rejected. This includes a bar created due to lapse of limitation period. However, if the question of limitation relates to the merits of the case, the same will be decided with other issues, and not at the outset. In Raghwendra Sharan Singh Vs Ram Prasanna Singh, AIR 2019 SC 1430, the Supreme Court had unequivocally held that, Considering the averments in the Plaint if it is found that the Suit is clearly barred by law of limitation, the same can be rejected in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the CPC.

(x)    Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society Vs. Ponniamman Educational Trust, AIR 2012 SC 3912

If plaint does not disclose cause of action, the same can be rejected based on the principles as contained in Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. The cause of action may accrue if there are breach of a contract, any civil injury which is actionable as per law. If cause of action is not disclosed the plaint shall be liable to be rejected.

VALUATION OF SUIT

If a Suit is Undervalued under Sub-rule (b) under Rule 11 of Order  VII of the Code the Court may permit the plaintiff or claimant for making good deficiency and some time may be provided for this purpose, failing which the Plaint may be rejected. It is the duty of court under sub-rule (b) to reject the Plaint when the relief claimed is undervalued.(Ref: Meenakshi Sundaram Chettiar Vs. Venkatachalam Chettiar, 1979 SCR (3) 385)

 

It is worth mentioning here, however is that
if a person has no means to pay court fee, he may be treated as an Indigent person in accordance with Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The Plaintiff should meticulously value the suit by taking into account all factors necessary for valuation. In case in a Suit for accounts, a Plaintiff may not able to ascertain the exact amount for the purpose of valuation of the Suit, then the Court will have to take into account if the suit is undervalued. If a proximate amount is ascertained by a plaintiff, when estimating exact amount may be difficult, an estimated and reasonable valuation may be given. The arbitrarily valuation and undervaluation cannot be permitted.

Similarly, plaint Insufficiently Stamped under Sub-rule (c) under Rule 11 of Order VII1 of the Code clearly prescribes that if a Plaint has not been duly stamped and authorized, the Court may accord some time to make good the deficiency. If the Plaintiff fails to comply with the same, the Plaint may then be rejected. This again, is essential for the reasons for the court fees under the Court Fee Act, 1870.

Failure to meet the pre-requisites for filing a Suit, such as service of notice as per Section 80 of the Code, three months prior to institution of a Suit against the Government, is also a ground for rejection. Similarly, institution of a Suit before a Civil Court is also barred by certain Special Statues, such as the Consumer Protection Act, the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, SARFAESI, Act 2002 etc., since these matters fall within the purview of specifically dedicated Tribunals. However, in such an event, the plaint is not rejected for being barred by law, but the same is returned under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code, for presentation before a competent court of jurisdiction.

As per Order VII Rule 11, the Plaint would be rejected, where it is not filed in duplicate and not considered to be not duly instituted as stipulated by Rule 3 of Order IV.

Non-conformity of the provisions of O IV Rule 1 leads to the dismissal of the Suit, whereas, non-conformity of the provisions of Clause (e) of Rule 11 of Order VII leads to rejection of the Plaint. The remedy in both the cases appears to be different, whereas, in one case appeal is required to be filed to get Suit restored, in the other situation, the remedy is revision.

Conclusion

The Code of Civil Procedure is a comprehensive legislation which includes under its ambit the detailed procedure required to be followed by the Civil Courts. The filing of plaint is the first step and it is incumbent on plaintiff to suitably draf5t the cause and how the plaintiff is aggrieved and further how the default or breaches are attributable on defendants? The statement in the Plaint being vital for the purpose of disclosure of cause of action, thus, before filing, it is required to be clearly ascertained that the lapses on the part of plaintiff should not render the plaint to be liable to be rejected. The law has evolved in this context and not only the plaint, even the documents along with the plaint shall have of utmost value in this context as clear right to sue should be evident from the bare perusal of plaint and documents.  The clever drafting seeking to create film of illusion and perceived cause of action, whereas, there may be none, the Court is required to nip it in the bud, such plaint, at the very first hearing, by probing and examining the party under Order X of the Code of Civil Procedure. The courts has comprehensive power to deal with such a situation and even suo motu note can be taken. There can be no quarrel as regards the law in this context that frivolous claim/suit containing absurd or vexatious cause of action need to be rejected at the threshold, whereas, bona fid litigants, with clear right to sue and plaint disclosing cause of action and if further, the suit is in conformity with the stipulation under Order VII Rule 11 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) & (f) of Code of Civil Procedure, the suit may be proceeded further and trial may be conducted.  

                                                  Anil K Khaware

Founder & Senior Associate

Societylawandjustice.com