Source: Delhi High Court  

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja held that the plaint should not be rejected on the ground that the averments are not sufficient to prove the facts. The Court is authorized to reject the plaint only if the plaint fails to disclose a cause of action. 

• The Delhi High Court held this in the case of Gurmeeet Singh Sachdeva v. Skyways Air Services Pvt. Ltd. (2025). 

What was the Background of Gurmeeet Singh Sachdeva v. Skyways Air Services Pvt. Ltd. (2025) Case?   

• Skyways Air Services Pvt. Ltd. (plaintiff/respondent) filed a suit against Gurmeet Singh Sachdeva (defendant/petitioner) for recovery of Rs. 21,28,478/- (Rs. 18,03,795/- as principal and Rs. 3,24,683/- as interest). 
• The plaintiff alleged that the defendant used their logistic services to send goods to foreign destinations by air but failed to make the payment for these services. 
• The defendant filed a Written Statement contesting the claim and raising preliminary legal objections, including that the plaint was vague, ambiguous, lacked material particulars, and did not disclose a valid cause of action. 
• On 12th October 2023, the defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (CPC) seeking rejection of the plaint for non-disclosure of valid cause of action. 
• The trial court (District Judge, Commercial Court-03, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi) dismissed this application with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- on 12th October 2023. 
• Aggrieved by this order, the defendant filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order. 
• The defendant argued that the plaint lacked specific details about the goods, booking dates, airlines used, freight charges, taxes, and service charges. 
• The plaintiff countered that they had summarized the facts in the plaint and filed all relevant documents (approximately 200 pages) including ledger accounts, sub-agency collection reports, bills with airway bills, customer instructions, and billing reports. 
• The plaintiff maintained that these documents, which the defendant allegedly deliberately omitted from the record, contained complete details of the transactions. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court first of all observed that rejection of plaint is provided for under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. 
• The Court held that while dealing with an application for rejection of plaint the Court has to only deal with the averments made in the plaint and the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement are not relevant at this stage. 
• The Court held that it has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Liverpool & London S.P. & I Association Ltd v. M.V. Sea Success & Another (2004) that if the averments made in the plaint or documents relied upon disclose a cause of action, plaint should not be rejected merely on the ground that the averments are not sufficient to prove the facts stated therein. 
  • It held that for the disposal of application under Rule 11 (a), the documents filed under Rule 14 must be taken into consideration. 
• The Court clarified that Order VII Rule 11, while authorizing the rejection of a plaint for failure to disclose a cause of action, does not mean a plaint should be rejected if it contains averments that disclose a cause of action but may not be sufficient to prove the facts needed for the claimed relief. 
• The Court established that a plaint should not be examined in isolation from the documents relied upon in the plaint. 
• The Court noted that since the respondent had placed on record all relevant documents containing details about goods booked, destinations, taxes, and invoice dates, it cannot be said that the plaint fails to disclose a cause of action. 
• The Court emphasized that the phrase "does not disclose the cause of action" must be very narrowly construed. 
• The Court observed that rejection of a plaint at the threshold carries serious consequences, and this power should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances. 
• The Court stated that this power should be used only when the Court is absolutely certain that the plaintiff has no arguable case whatsoever. 
• The Court pointed out that the petitioner's argument was not that a combined reading of the plaint with the documents fails to disclose a cause of action. 
• The Court found no merit in the petition and accordingly dismissed it. 
• The Court also disposed of any pending applications related to the case. 

What is Cause of Action? 

• The term “cause of action” has been explained in several case laws as follows: 
  • Om Prakash Srivastava v. Union of India & Anr. (2006) 
    • The Supreme Court defined cause of action as "every fact, which, if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the Court."  
    • In other words, it's the bundle of facts necessary for the plaintiff to establish to succeed in their suit. 
  • Bloom Dekor Ltd. v. Subhash Himatlal Desai (1994) 
    • This case established that cause of action refers to the collection of facts that a plaintiff must prove to obtain a favorable judgment. 
  • Sadanandan Bhadran v. Madhavan Sunil Kumar (1998) 
    • The court held that in a broad sense (as used in Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code), cause of action means every fact necessary to establish to support a right to obtain a judgment. 
  • South East Asia Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Nav Bharat Enterprises (P) Ltd. (1996) 
    • This case clarified that cause of action consists of facts that give cause to enforce legal inquiry for redress. Importantly, it must include some act done by the defendant, as without such an act, no cause of action would arise. 
  • Rajasthan High Court Advocates' Assn. v. Union of India (2001) 
    • The court distinguished between the restricted and wider meanings of cause of action: 
      • In the restricted sense: the circumstances forming the infraction of the right 
      • In the wider sense: necessary conditions for maintaining the suit, including both the infraction and the right itself 
    • The judgment also distinguished between facts necessary to be proved (which comprise the cause of action) and pieces of evidence needed to prove those facts (which are not part of the cause of action).
  • Gurdit Singh v. Munsha Singh (1977) 
    • This case emphasized the two interpretations of cause of action: 
      • Restricted view: facts constituting the infringement or basis of a right 
      • Comprehensive view: the entire bundle of material facts a plaintiff must prove to succeed