Rejection of Plaints: SC says a plaint cannot be rejected in part under Order VII Rule 11, CPC unless it does not disclose a cause of action
On October 31, 2023, the Supreme Court (SC) while hearing the Kum. Geetha, D/o Late Krishna & Ors. vs. Nanjundaswamy & Ors. case said that a plaint cannot be rejected in part under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908. The bench hearing the matter also reiterated that a plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC when it does not disclose a cause of action. Yesterday (October 31), the matter was heard by a two-judge bench of the SC constituting Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice PS Narasimha. The bench observed that “In simple terms, the true test is first to read the plaint meaningfully and as a whole, taking it to be true. Upon such reading, if the plaint discloses a cause of action, then the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC must fail. To put it negatively, where it does not disclose a cause of action, the plaint shall be rejected.”
In this case, two questions were addressed, the first was related to the true and correct application of the principle underlying the ‘rejection of plaints’ under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, 1908, to the facts of the case. The second question was regarding the legality of rejection of a plaint in part. Plaintiffs along with the Defendants (1 and 3) are members of a joint family owning properties mentioned in Schedule A and B of the plaint. The plaint was presented by the plaintiffs for partition and separate possession. Four years after the suit was instituted, the Defendants filed a petition seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11, CPC. The Trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the plaint does disclose a cause of action; therefore the matter was further mentioned before the Karnataka High Court.
The HC by the impugned order, observed that the property (described in Schedule A of the plaint) was sold via a registered Sale Deed. It reasoned that the Plaintiffs did not deny the sale, but only urged that there was a subsequent re-conveyancing of the property back to the joint family, without a corresponding mutation of revenue records. The HC impressed by the fact that the Plaintiffs neither produced any evidence to challenge the Sale Deed nor sought any declaratory relief against the Sale Deed, proceeded to allow the application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC in part and rejected the Plaint with respect to Schedule-A property. Aggrieved by the decisions of the HC, the matter was presented before the Supreme Court.
During the proceedings, the SC bench observed that the true test is first to read the plaint meaningfully and take it to be true and said that if the plaint discloses a cause of action, upon such reading, then the application must fail. Furthermore, the SC said, “Simply put, the High Court could not have anticipated the truth of the averments by assuming that the alleged previous sale of the property is complete or that it has been acted upon. The approach adopted by the High Court is incorrect and contrary to the well-entrenched principles of considering an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC.” The bench set aside the HC order and dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC.
The SC order reads, “In view of the above-referred principle, we have no hesitation in holding that the High Court committed an error in rejecting the plaint in part with respect to Schedule-A property and permitting the Plaintiffs to prosecute the case only with respect to Schedule-B property. This approach while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC is impermissible. We, therefore, set aside the judgment and order of the High Court even on this ground.” the bench added, “In view of the fact that the present proceedings arise out of a suit instituted in 2005, we request the Trial Court to take up the trial and dispose of the suit expeditiously.”
