Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice R. Mahadevan, Supreme Court
Plaint Cannot Be Rejected in Its Entirety Merely Because One Of The Prayers Or Reliefs Sought Is Legally Untenable: Supreme Court
|The Court said that when a plaint contains distinct causes of action, including one involving triable issues on title to immovable property, it cannot be rejected in its entirety under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The Supreme Court has held that a plaint cannot be rejected in its entirety merely because one of the prayers or reliefs sought is legally untenable, if other parts of the plaint raise distinct causes of action involving triable issues. The Court said such claims must be examined in trial and cannot be dismissed at the threshold.
A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan observed, "The High Court erred in treating the second cause of action – pertaining to the sale deeds registered on 19.07.2022 – as merely ‘academic’, and proceeded to reject the plaint in its entirety without undertaking a judicial examination of this distinct issue. This approach is contrary to the well settled legal principle that a plaint may be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC only if, on a plain reading of the plaint, it discloses no cause of action or falls within the other narrowly defined grounds under the said provision, such as under-valuation, insufficient court fees, or bar by any law.”
The Court added, “...even if one relief survives, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.”
The Appellant was represented by Advocate Dr. Manish Singhvi, while Advocate on Record Nitin Mishra appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The Appellant claimed ownership of agricultural land and had taken a loan of Rs. 7.5 crores from the first Respondents. A board resolution was passed authorising the execution of a power of attorney and agreement to sell in favour of the Respondents. These documents were unregistered and were subsequently revoked.
Despite the revocation, the Respondents executed two sale deeds, which were registered in their favour and favour of others. The Appellant filed a suit seeking a declaration that the sale deeds were void, possession, and a permanent injunction. The Trial Court refused to reject the plaint, but the High Court allowed a revision petition and rejected it under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Reasoning of the Court
The Court held that the plaint raised triable issues concerning the legality of the sale deeds executed after revocation of the power of attorney and that such issues must be adjudicated in trial. It held, “At this preliminary stage, the court is required to confine its examination strictly to the averments made in the plaint and not venture into the merits or veracity of the claims. If any triable issues arise from the pleadings, the suit cannot be summarily rejected.”
The Court said that the power of attorney and agreement to sell relied upon by the respondents were unregistered and had already been revoked before the execution of the impugned sale deeds. It held, “Respondent No.1 has not instituted any suit for specific performance. Moreover, the power of attorney relied upon was unregistered and had already been revoked prior to the execution of the sale deeds. Therefore, Respondent No.1 cannot rely on the unregistered documents to assert any proprietary rights and had no valid authority to execute the impugned sale deeds.”
The Court emphasised that the High Court failed to consider the second and independent cause of action that arose after revocation. It held, “The High Court’s wholesale rejection of the plaint, without appreciating that the reliefs claimed flowed from multiple and distinct causes of action – particularly one arising after the revocation of the power of attorney – amounts to an improper application of Order VII Rule 11 CPC.”
Referring to its earlier judgment, the Court said, “Even if one relief survives, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.”
On the objection raised by the respondents under Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, the Court held, “It is well settled that issues relating to title of immovable property fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of civil courts and not revenue authorities. Revenue entries are administrative in nature and intended only for fiscal purposes. The applicability of Section 207… does not arise in the present case.”
The Court also rejected the contention that the suit was liable to be dismissed for want of proper court fee. It held, “The suit cannot be dismissed merely on the ground of insufficient court fee. The law mandates that the plaintiff be afforded an opportunity to rectify such deficiency. Only upon failure to comply, can the plaint be rejected.”
The Court concluded that the trial court rightly found that the issues were triable and that the rejection of the plaint by the High Court was legally unsustainable. It held, “In light of the above, we find that the trial court rightly held that the issues are triable and that the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was without merit. In contrast, the High Court erred in overturning this finding and rejecting the plaint in its entirety.”
“Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside, and the order of the Additional District Judge is restored. Consequently, the plaint is directed to be taken on the file of the trial Court, which shall proceed with the suit in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made in this judgment.”
Cause Title: Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. v. Mahaveer Lunia & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 772)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR D. K. Devesh; Advocates Dr. Manish Singhvi, Apurv Singhvi, Shalini Haldar
Respondents: AOR Nitin Mishra; Advocates Sumit Chander, Gurdeep Chauhan
Click here to read/download Judgment