Non-Admissibility Of Document Produced Along With Plaint Not A Ground For Rejection Of Plaint: Supreme Court
The Court held that non-registration of a document relied upon in the plaint cannot be adjudicated at the stage of rejecting the plaint, and that both the Trial Court and the High Court misdirected themselves in going into the question before commencement of trial.
The Supreme Court has held that the admissibility of a document, including one alleged to require compulsory registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, cannot be decided while considering an application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the CPC. Such a question, the Court held, falls squarely within the domain of trial, and recording a finding of inadmissibility before parties have led evidence would be contrary to law.
The Court further held that a party relying on an unregistered document cannot be shut out at the threshold without being given an opportunity to prove the document or to invoke the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, which permits reliance on an unregistered instrument as evidence of a collateral transaction. Whether that proviso applies, the Bench clarified, is itself a matter to be adjudicated only after evidence is led at trial, not a question that can be pre-empted at the pleadings stage.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar observed, “…In our view, both the Courts misdirected themselves while adjudicating the application filed by the defendants under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. The issue of admissibility or otherwise of a document would be the subject matter of trial. Recording a finding that a particular document was inadmissible in evidence even before parties lead evidence would be contrary to law”.
“…we are of the view that the aspect of admissibility or otherwise of a document filed along with the plaint cannot be made the basis for seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and/or (d) of the Code. The question of admissibility or otherwise of a document is a matter for consideration at the trial and it is only at that stage that such issue could be raised and gone into. The question as regards admissibility of a document would be relevant while adjudicating the suit on merits and not while considering a prayer for rejection of the plaint”, the Bench noted further.
Senior Advocates Niraj Kishan Kaul and Shadan Farasat appeared for the appellants while Senior Advocate Gagan Gupta appeared for the respondents.
The appellants (plaintiffs) leased land to the respondent society for 33 years via a registered lease deed dated October 17, 2011, to build a school. An unregistered supplementary lease deed was later executed on February 15, 2013, to facilitate a bank loan, modifying lease terms, including the monthly rent. When the defendants allegedly defaulted on the revised rent, the plaintiffs issued a termination notice and filed a suit for eviction and arrears.
The defendants sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC, arguing that the supplementary lease deed was compulsorily registrable and that its non-registration under Section 49 of the Registration Act barred its consideration, rendering the suit without a cause of action and barred by law. The Trial Court rejected the application, holding the supplementary deed to be an integral part of the registered lease. However, the Patna High Court reversed this order, ruling the unregistered deed inadmissible, and remanded the matter to decide the Order VII Rule 11 application afresh without referencing the document.
Examining the plaint on its own averments, as required under the settled test in P.V. Guru Raj Reddy Rep. by GPA Laxmi Narayan Reddy & Another v. P. Neeradha Reddy & Ors. 2015 INSC 113, the Court held that both the Trial Court and the High Court had erred by venturing into the question of the supplementary deed's admissibility, a defence raised by the defendants, instead of confining themselves to the plaint's own averments, which asserted that the document did not require registration. The Court held that reading the plaint as a whole, it disclosed a cause of action and was not barred by law.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the High Court's order, rejected the defendants' application under Order VII Rule 11, and directed the Trial Court to decide the suit on merits, uninfluenced by any observations made in the judgment. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
Cause Title: Sheo Kumar Singh and Others v. M/s Sharda Educational Society and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1011)
Appearances:
Appellants: Niraj Kishan Kaul and Shadan Farasat, Senior Advocates.
Respondents: Gagan Gupta, Senior Advocate.