Introduction
The Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is a crucial procedural law governing the enforcement of civil rights and liabilities specified in various substantive laws. One vital aspect of this procedural framework is the initiation of a lawsuit against a defendant in a court of law. According to C.P.C., Section 26 read with Order 4, a suit must be initiated by presenting a plaint. The presentation of the plaint is governed by Order VI and Order VII of C.P.C., with Order VII specifically addressing the formalities and particulars to be included in the plaint.
Among the provisions outlined in Order VII, Rule 11 specifies the grounds on which a court can reject a plaint. It is essential to distinguish between the rejection of a plaint and the return of a plaint (as per Order VII, Rule 10). When the court determines that it lacks the jurisdiction to try a particular matter, it returns the plaint to be presented before the appropriate court with the rightful jurisdiction. On the other hand, when an application is filed under Order VII, Rule 11, the court must assess the application to determine the admissibility of the plaint for institution.
In the case of Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra, the court held that while deciding an application under Order VII, Rule 11, only the averments made in the plaint are relevant. The pleas put forward by the defendant in the written statement at that stage are entirely irrelevant. Therefore, any direction given by the trial court to file a written statement without first deciding on the application under Order VII, Rule 11 would be considered a procedural irregularity.
Today in this article we will explore Order 7 Rule 11 CPC-Rejection of Plaint
What is Order 7 Rule 11?
The Civil Procedure Code of 1908 encompasses provisions pertaining to various civil litigations. When initiating a civil suit in court, the Code mandates the court to ascertain whether the suit is maintainable or not. After such determination, the court can take one of the following actions:
- Accept the plaint,
- Reject the plaint, or
- Return the plaint to the plaintiff or the party filing the suit.
To fulfill this duty, Order 7 Rule 11 comes into play, which outlines the grounds (discussed below) on which a plaint may be rejected. Before delving into these grounds, it is crucial to recognize that the filing of a plaint to institute a suit is essential, and every court holds the responsibility to scrutinize the plaint and determine its admissibility.
When submitting an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court is obligated to assess whether the present case falls within the specified six categories. If the suit does not fall under any of these prescribed categories, the rejection of the plaint cannot be justified (V. Bragan Nayagi Vs. R.R. Jeyaprakasam, 2015(4) MLJ 538).
Beyond Order VII Rule 11: Dismissing Civil Suits under CPC
In legal proceedings, several provisions may lead to the dismissal of a plaint. However, one provision that frequently arises and requires careful consideration is the petition for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
(a) The dismissal occurs as a result of the plaint’s rejection under Order VII Rule 11 of the code, based on the grounds specified in Sub-sections (i) to (v).
(b) Dismissal under Order IX Rule 2 or Rule 3 or Rule 5 or Rule 8 for non-service of summons, non-appearance, or failure to apply for fresh summons.
(c) Dismissal under Order XI Rule 21 for non-compliance with an order to answer interrogatories or for discovery or inspection of documents.
(d) Dismissal under Order XIV Rule 2(2) when issues of both law and fact arise in the same suit, and the court deems it appropriate to decide the issue of law first, which may lead to the dismissal of the suit.
(e) Dismissal under Order XV Rule 1 of the code when, during the first hearing, it becomes evident that the parties are not in disagreement on any question of law or fact.
(f) The dismissal takes place under Order XV Rule 4 of the code due to the party’s failure to present or produce the required evidence during the proceedings.
(g) Dismissal under Order XXIII Rule 1 and 3 of the code when a suit is withdrawn or settled out of court.
Among these provisions, petitions for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC are particularly common, warranting special attention from judges.
Order VII Rule 11 CPC empowers the court to reject a plaint under certain circumstances, ensuring that only valid and maintainable claims proceed to trial. The rule provides grounds for rejection, such as the absence of a cause of action, lack of jurisdiction, and non-compliance with necessary legal formalities. It is crucial for judges to meticulously assess these grounds to prevent frivolous claims from burdening the judicial system.
When considering a petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, judges must exercise due diligence in examining the facts and merits of the case. It is vital to strike a balance between swiftly disposing of baseless claims and safeguarding the legitimate rights of the parties involved. Properly handling such petitions can significantly reduce the workload on the courts and expedite the administration of justice.
Object of Order VII Rule 11 CPC
The primary intent behind implementing Order VII Rule 11 (a) is to prevent unnecessary prolongation of legal proceedings in a suit where either the cause of action is absent or the suit is time-barred under Rule 11 (d). The court’s objective is to curtail frivolous litigation and preserve valuable judicial time. As illustrated in the case of Dahiben Vs. Arvinbhai Kalyanji Bhansai (2020) SCC Online, 563, the dismissal of such suits plays a vital role in terminating sham litigation and fostering a more streamlined and efficient judicial process.
The conferment of powers under this provision serves a crucial purpose – to safeguard the court’s valuable time from being squandered on meaningless and futile litigation. The essence of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code lies in its ability to filter out baseless lawsuits, preventing them from burdening the judicial system.
In this regard, Order X of the Code empowers the courts with a potent tool to conduct a thorough examination of parties involved, enabling them to determine if a suit is nothing more than an irresponsible abuse of the court’s process – a mere charade of litigation. The case of Azhar Hussain Vs. Rajiv Gandhi (1986 Supp. SCC 315) and Sopan Sukhdeo Sable Vs. Asstt. Charity Commr. (2004) 3 SCC 137) both underscore the significance of using these provisions judiciously to ensure a fair and efficient administration of justice.
Order 7 Rule 11: Meaning and Scope
The meaning and scope of Rule 11 of Order VII CPC have been expounded in various legal decisions. It has been deduced that a Plaint can be rejected under this rule if it fails to disclose the cause of action or if it is barred by law. Additionally, the provision aims to protect defendants from the burden of contesting a non-maintainable suit in lengthy and vexatious litigation. Moreover, the rule serves to discourage the abuse of the court’s process and the filing of frivolous lawsuits without proper authority. One such instance can be found in the case of Dr. L. Ramachandran vs. K. Ramesh (2015(4) LW. 585 (Mad) (DB), Para 26). In essence, Order VII Rule 11 CPC acts as a procedural safeguard against vexatious and baseless litigation.
When applying the authority vested in it by this provision, the Court is tasked with evaluating whether the claims presented in the plaint contradict statutory laws or established judicial precedents. This assessment is crucial in determining whether the conditions for dismissing the plaint at the initial stage have been met, as illustrated in the case of Dahiben vs. Arvinbhai Kalyanji Bhansai (2020 SCC Online 563, Para 12.5).
Order 7 Rule 11: Nature of Power
The recourse available under Order VII Rule 11 represents a distinct and unique remedy, allowing the Court to promptly dismiss a suit right from the outset. This process circumvents the need to go through the extensive formalities of recording evidence and conducting a full trial. Instead, if the Court determines that sufficient grounds exist, as outlined in this provision, it possesses the authority to terminate the action based on the evidence presented. This significant aspect of the rule was evident in the case of Dahiben vs. Arvinbhai Kalyanji Bhansai (2020 SCC Online 563, Para 11).
Rule 11 of Order VII establishes a separate and autonomous recourse for the defendant to contest the viability of the suit itself, regardless of their entitlement to challenge it on substantive grounds. This independent remedy allows the defendant to raise objections regarding the maintainability of the suit, as demonstrated in the case of Sopan Sukhdeo Sable vs. Asstt. Charity Commr., (2004) 3 SCC 137. In essence, this provision empowers the defendant to address fundamental issues relating to the suit’s validity without delving into the merits of the case.
Court’s Role: Order 7 Rule 11 CPC
Having an activist judge presiding over cases can serve as a solution to counter irresponsible law suits. These judges would assertively prioritize examining the parties involved during the initial hearing to swiftly dismiss frivolous litigation. Additionally, the penal code can offer effective measures to address such individuals and must be enforced against them. In the case of T. Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal and another (AIR 1977 SC 2421: (1978) 1 SCJ 197, Para 5), the learned Judge experienced the truth behind George Bernard Shaw’s observation on Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination: “It is dangerous to be too good.” This highlights the potential risks and challenges faced by judges who genuinely strive to uphold justice and combat baseless legal actions.
The trial court must bear in mind that it should not merely follow a formal reading of the plaint but rather engage in a meaningful assessment. If it becomes evident that the plaint is vexatious and lacks merit, failing to disclose a clear right to sue, the court should utilize its authority under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. It is crucial to ensure that the specific grounds mentioned in the rule are met before taking any action. Crafty drafting techniques that create the illusion of a cause of action should be promptly dealt with during the initial hearing by conducting a thorough examination of the party in accordance with Order X of the Code. The case of Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Asstt. Charity Commr., (2004) 3 SCC 137 exemplifies the importance of such careful evaluation and prompt action to prevent the misuse of legal proceedings.
Suo Moto Application of Order 7 Rule 11: Possible?
Contrary to using discretionary language, the term ‘shall’ is employed in Rule 11, indicating a definite obligation on the part of the Court to fulfill its duties in rejecting the plaint if it is affected by any of the deficiencies outlined in the four clauses. The Court is empowered to take action even without the defendant’s involvement, clearly emphasizing the mandatory nature of the provision. The case of Sopan Sukhdeo Sable vs. Asstt. Charity Commr., (2004) 3 SCC 137, exemplifies the significance of this aspect in ensuring the proper application of Rule 11 and the Court’s responsibility in handling such matters.
The authority to strike off the plaint is not contingent upon the defendant filing an application for rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. As established in the case of Mani vs. P. Ramakrishnan (2018(4) MLJ 182 (Mad)), the Court retains the power to take such action even in the absence of a formal application from the defendant. This underscores the Court’s autonomy to address the suit’s viability independently, ensuring a fair and efficient judicial process.
Relevant Material to be Considered for Plaint Rejection Under O7 R 11
During this phase, it is crucial to note that any defenses raised by the defendant in the written statement or in an application for rejection of the plaint based on its merits become immaterial and should not be taken into account. This key principle was underscored in the case of Dahiben vs. Arvinbhai Kalyanji Bhansai (2020 SCC Online 563, Para 12.5). The focus should remain solely on the content of the plaint while evaluating the application under Order VII, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
In the course of deciding the application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court is indeed entitled to examine the documents referenced in the plaint. This clarification was provided in the case of Sanjay Kaushish vs. D. C Kaushiah (AIR 1992 Del 118, Para 63). Hence, the Court is authorized to consider the documents mentioned in the plaint to make a well-informed judgment on the application.
When this court is tasked with exercising its jurisdiction to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, only the statements made in the plaint and the documents filed alongside it, which are an integral part of the plaint, shall be considered. The court is precluded from taking into account the defendant’s defense, pleas, or materials submitted for the purpose of rejecting the plaint. This principle was elucidated in the case of Gunaseelan vs. Valarmathi and 2 Ors (2009(5) CTC 693, Para 13). Thus, the assessment of the plaint’s viability must rely solely on its own contents and the documents appended to it, without any reference to the defendant’s submissions or defenses.
Also Read: Res Judicata: Under Civil Procedure Code
Grounds for the Rejection of Plaint Under O 7 R11
Cause of Action Not Disclosed in Plaint – Rule 11(a):
Cause of action refers to the right to initiate legal action. It encompasses the essential facts that a plaintiff must assert and prove to support their claim. Although not specifically defined by any statute, the judicial interpretation clarifies that cause of action includes all the facts necessary for the plaintiff to establish their entitlement to the Court’s judgment. Conversely, any fact that, if not proven, would entitle the defendant to an immediate judgment, also forms part of the cause of action. The significance of cause of action cannot be overstated.
In every legal action, a valid cause of action must exist; otherwise, the plaint or writ petition, depending on the case, may be promptly dismissed. This vital principle was exemplified in the case of Usum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. vs. Union of India and another (2004) 6 Supreme Court Cases, 254, Para 6. Therefore, a clear cause of action is fundamental for the validity and progression of any legal claim or petition.
A cause of action constitutes a collection of facts and implies the right to initiate legal action. It is essential to distinguish between the non-disclosure of a cause of action and a defective cause of action. It is well understood in legal terms that an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is applicable when there is a non-disclosure of a cause of action. However, it does not extend to cases involving a defective cause of action. This distinction was clarified in the case of Yrooj Ahamed Lords Enterprises vs. Preethi Kitchen appliances Pvt. Ltd, 2013(6) CTC 247, Para 5(a)(ii).
In summary, the court must recognize the difference between the absence of a cause of action due to non-disclosure and a cause of action that exists but is defective. The former falls under the purview of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, while the latter requires different considerations and remedies.
Suit is undervalued – Rule 11(b):
The matter of Court Fee is essentially a concern that pertains to the litigant and the Revenue/Government. It involves the obligation of the litigant to pay the appropriate Court Fee. Notably, the Defendants hold the right to raise objections regarding the payment of Court Fee by the Plaintiffs either through their Written Statement or by submitting an application before evidence is presented in the main suit. This allows for a fair and transparent resolution of any issues related to Court Fee, ensuring that the correct fees are duly paid and the legal process proceeds smoothly.
It should be emphasized that under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a plaint can only be returned to the Plaintiff if the Court where the plaint is filed lacks the necessary territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction. If a Court of Law does not have the appropriate jurisdiction, it must return the plaint, irrespective of whether the claim is improperly valued or undervalued. In such cases, the Court does not have the authority to rectify the valuation concerning the requirement of Additional Court Fee or dismiss the suit for default under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. The focus remains on the Court’s jurisdictional aspect, and the appropriate actions are taken accordingly to ensure a fair and lawful resolution of the matter.
Order VII Rule 11 (d):
As per Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code, a plaint can be rejected if the suit is barred by the Law of Limitation.
However, it is important to note that if a suit is initially barred by the Law of Limitation, the plaint of such a suit can be amended during the hearing. The Court has the responsibility to ascertain whether there is non-disclosure of the cause of action or if the plaint is barred under any law, including the limitation laws.
In cases where the plaintiff can demonstrate that the suit was filed within the prescribed period of limitation, the provisions of this order will not be applicable. Determining the period of limitation involves considering both legal principles and factual elements.
For instance, if a suit is initiated against the government without serving the required notice (which is usually required to be served 2 months before filing the suit) under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaint for such a suit will be rejected. Section 80 of the Code necessitates serving a notice to the government or the public officer before instituting the suit. This ensures that proper procedures are followed when bringing legal action against the government or public officials.
Order VII Rule 11 (e):
According to Order VII Rule 11(e) of the Code, it is mandatory for the plaintiff to file a duplicate copy of the plaint along with the original one when initiating a suit. Failure to comply with this requirement leads to the rejection of the plaint. This particular procedure is further detailed in Order 4 Rule 1 of the CPC.
In cases where the plaintiff fails to follow the prescribed procedure and neglects to submit the duplicate copy of the plaint, the court holds the discretionary power to reject the plaint. The court’s discretion comes into play when the necessary filing procedure is not adhered to, ensuring the proper administration of justice and adherence to the procedural rules. Hence, the significance of complying with the prescribed filing requirements cannot be overstated in order to avoid the rejection of the plaint.
It is evident that the mentioned clause is of a procedural nature, and it does not mandate an automatic rejection of the plaint at the initial stage. When there is a defect as per Rule 11(e) or non-compliance as stated in Rule 11(f), the court should generally provide an opportunity for rectifying these issues. Only if the defects are not rectified within the given opportunity, the court may then exercise its discretion to reject the plaint. This approach ensures fairness and allows parties to correct any deficiencies before resorting to outright rejection. The case of Salem advocate bar Association Tamilnadu vs. Union of India (AIR 2003 SC 189: 2003(1) SCC 49) provides insight into this principle, highlighting the importance of allowing parties to rectify errors and defects before taking any drastic measures such as rejection of the plaint.
Other grounds for Rejection of Plaint
Rule 11’s provisions are not exhaustive, as the court possesses inherent powers to prevent vexatious litigations from burdening its time. In certain situations, both the High Court and the court where the suit is filed can issue directions not to entertain such suits. This discretionary power allows the courts to proactively address and discourage frivolous and time-consuming lawsuits. The case of M. Gurusamy and Anr. vs. G. Vijaya and Ors. (2008(1) MLJ 716, Para 5) illustrates the significance of these inherent powers in maintaining judicial efficiency and ensuring that the court’s resources are used judiciously.
Mis joinder – non-joinder of parties and misjoinder of cause of action :
Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code cannot be applied to reject the plaint when a suit exhibits the defect of either misjoinder of parties or misjoinder of causes of action, or both, as this defect does not render the suit barred by any law. The case of Prem Lala Nahata & Anr vs Chandi Prasad Sikaria (2007 (3) CTC 101(SC): 2007(2) MLJ 1177, Para 5) clarifies that the rejection under Rule 11(d) should pertain to cases where the suit is barred by a specific law. Thus, the defect related to misjoinder of parties or causes of action does not fall under the ambit of Rule 11(d) for the rejection of the plaint.
As per Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC, the non-joinder of necessary parties does not fall within the scope of being “barred by law.” This means that the rejection of a plaint under Rule 11(d) does not apply to cases where necessary parties have not been included in the suit. The case of P. Govindasamy vs. Manickam (2015(6) CTC 651S) emphasizes that the provision is not applicable to situations involving non-joinder of necessary parties. Therefore, the rejection of a plaint under Rule 11(d) should be limited to cases that are explicitly barred by a particular law and not extended to instances of non-joinder of necessary parties.
Non filing of documents:
The non-filing of documents on which the cause of action relies and the absence of court records may indeed pose challenges to the plaintiff’s case, benefiting the defendant. However, these factors alone do not justify the outright rejection of the plaint. The case of Metson Education and Development Association(P)Ltd vs. The Church of South India Trust Association (2008(1) CTC 521) emphasizes that such omissions or missing records should not be grounds for rejecting the plaint. Instead, the court should address these deficiencies during the course of the proceedings and provide the plaintiff with an opportunity to rectify or produce the necessary documents. The objective is to ensure a fair and just resolution of the case by allowing both parties to present their evidence and arguments properly.
Defective presentation of plaint:
It is firmly established that a defective presentation of a plaint alone cannot lead to the rejection of the plaint. The grounds for rejecting a plaint are specifically outlined in Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. A defect that is of a curable nature does not fall within the purview of Order 7 Rule 11. This principle was upheld in the case of K. Santhanam vs. S. Kavitha through her sub-power agent K. Seerappan ((2011)3 MLJ 34, Para 17). Therefore, the court must consider whether the defects are curable or fall under the grounds specified in Order 7 Rule 11 before deciding on the rejection of a plaint.
Conclusion
The Code of Civil Procedure serves as a comprehensive statute governing the entire procedure followed by civil courts across India. The initial step in filing a suit is drafting the plaint with meticulous attention, ensuring it includes all particulars as specified in Order VII of the Code.
The rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 constitutes a valuable remedy, saving the judiciary’s valuable time and protecting innocent respondents from protracted court cases and associated legal struggles.
Regarding Order 7 Rule 11’s status as a ‘deemed decree,’ it should be noted that the legislation explicitly permits the filing of a fresh plaint even after rejection of the previous one. This provision offers adequate protection to innocent plaintiffs, ensuring they are not prejudiced. Consequently, a new suit on the same subject matter can be brought by the plaintiff, allowing for another opportunity to address the issue.
In conclusion, when a plaint is found defective on any of the grounds mentioned in Order 7 Rule 11, the court holds the authority to dismiss it by issuing an order stating the reasons for rejection. This provision contributes to a more efficient judicial process and safeguards the rights of all parties involved.
Also Read: Res Judicata: Under Civil Procedure Code