Rejection of Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC

Why in News? 

Justice Rahul Bharti of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh in the case of Sunil Singh v. Krishan Lal Gupta and Ors. (2025) upheld the trial court's decision to reject the plaintiff's plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for failing to disclose a cause of action and establish the right to sue. 

What was the Background of Sunil Singh v. Krishan Lal Gupta and Ors. (2025) Case? 

• The appellant, Sunil Singh, filed a civil suit seeking declaration and consequential reliefs regarding a property situated at Talab Tillo, Jammu, measuring North 45 feet, South 40 feet, East 125 feet, and West 125 feet, falling under khasra Nos. 119, 120 and 121. 
• The suit sought to declare multiple documents as null and void, including a Gift Deed dated 28th February 2006 executed between defendant no. 2 (Om Prakash Gupta through attorney holder Sureshta Devi) and defendant no. 4 (Shashi Thakur). 
• The plaintiff challenged the Power of Attorney executed by defendant no. 2 to defendant no. 3, and a Gift Deed dated 27th May 1994 between defendant no. 1 (Krishan Lal Gupta) and defendant no. 2 (Om Prakash Gupta). 
• The suit also sought to declare as null and void a Gift Deed executed by deceased uncle Yogeshwar Singh in favour of Sarla Sayal on 23rd January 1993, claiming he had no right to execute the same. 
• The plaintiff sought mandatory injunction directing defendant no. 4 to restore possession in his favour and transfer of all rights and title of the suit property in his name. 
• The plaintiff named four persons as contesting defendants and two persons as proforma defendants, with proforma defendant no. 2 being his father (Jagjit Singh Bandral) and proforma defendant no. 1 being the widow of his late uncle Yogeshwar Singh. 
• The trial court of the 1st Additional District Judge, Jammu rejected the suit at the inception stage by order dated 2nd August 2021, invoking Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 
• The rejection was based on the singular ground that the plaintiff had nowhere pleaded or shown how the suit property was legally related to him so as to earn a right to sue for declaration and reliefs. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The High Court conducted a thorough examination of the entire plaint to determine whether the plaintiff had established his legal status regarding the suit property to earn the right to sue. 
• The Court observed that the entire reading of the plaint failed to reveal even a single line indicating how the plaintiff could be reckoned as owner or claimant of the suit property. 
• The Court noted that the plaintiff was lost in his own jugglery of averments by purportedly relating the suit property to his father and deceased uncle, but not to himself, while still filing the suit in his own name. 
• The Court emphasized principles laid down in Raj Narain Sarin (Dead) through LRs and ors v. Laxmi Devi and ors (2002) 10 SCC 501, where the Supreme Court held that courts should be hesitant to exercise jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 unless the factual score warrants such exercise. 
• The Court highlighted that the Supreme Court emphasized the role of fact-stating made in a plaint as the basis for rejection or non-rejection under Order VII Rule 11, and if a plaint has missing or deficient facts constituting a cause of action, it warrants rejection. 
• The Court stated that rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 is a matter requiring attentive application of mind, bearing in mind that the essence of a civil suit is seeking a decree through formal adjudication of rights after framing issues of fact and law. 
• The Court emphasized that rejection of a plaint is a digression from the normal adjudication process and should not be served unless the plaint is self-inviting rejection. 
• Reference was made to Kuldeep Singh Pathania v. Bikram Singh Jaryal (2017) where the Supreme Court held that under Order VII Rule 11, the court must examine only the pleadings of the plaintiff to determine whether they constitute a cause of action, to the total exclusion of defendant's rebuttal. 
• The Court highlighted the case of Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead through legal representatives and ors (2020)  where the Supreme Court recognized Order VII Rule 11 as an independent remedy empowering courts to summarily dismiss suits at the threshold without recording evidence if grounds for termination are satisfied. 
• The Court emphasized that power under Order VII Rule 11 is a drastic power requiring strict adherence to conditions, and courts must determine whether a plaint discloses a cause of action by scrutinizing averments read with documents relied upon. 
• The High Court expressed full agreement with the trial court's order dated 2nd August 2021 rejecting the suit under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and dismissed the appeal along with all connected matters. 

What is Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Rejection of Plaint? 

• Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides for rejection of plaint in specific circumstances enumerated thereunder. 
• Clause (a) mandates rejection of plaint where it does not disclose a cause of action. 
• Clause (b) provides for rejection where the relief claimed is undervalued and the plaintiff fails to correct the valuation within the time fixed by the Court. 
• Clause (c) deals with cases where the relief is properly valued but the plaint is insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff fails to supply requisite stamp-paper within the time fixed. 
• Clause (d) mandates rejection where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. 
• Clause (e) provides for rejection where the plaint is not filed in duplicate. 
• Clause (f) stipulates rejection where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9 of Order VII. 
• The proviso stipulates that time for correction of valuation or supplying stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by exceptional cause and refusal would cause grave injustice. 
• The power to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 is an extraordinary power and must be exercised with great caution and circumspection. 
• Under clause (d), the Court must determine from the averments in the plaint itself whether the suit is barred by any law, including the law of limitation. 
• The scope of enquiry under Order VII Rule 11(d) is limited to the face of the plaint and the documents annexed thereto or referred to therein. 
• The defence set up by the defendant cannot be considered while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 
• The power should be exercised only in clear and manifest cases where the plaint is ex facie barred. 
• Where determination of limitation requires examination of evidence or consideration of mixed questions of law and fact, the plaint cannot be rejected under clause (d). 
• The Court cannot travel beyond the four corners of the plaint while considering an application for rejection under Order VII Rule 11. 
• Where several reliefs are claimed and even one relief is within limitation, the plaint cannot be rejected in its entirety as barred by law. 
• The provision should not be used to shut out genuine claims merely on technical grounds without full adjudication on merits.