Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Rejection Of Plaint Is A Digression From Normal Adjudication; Only Pleadings In Plaint Should Be Looked Into: J&K And Ladakh High Court
The High Court held that rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is a limited digression from the normal course of civil adjudication and can be exercised only when the plaint, on its own showing, warrants such rejection.
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that the remedy of rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is a narrow exception to the usual process of adjudication of a civil suit and cannot be applied unless the plaint itself discloses facts that invite such rejection.
The Court was hearing an appeal challenging the order of the trial court, which had rejected the appellant’s suit at the threshold on the ground that the plaint did not disclose how the appellant was legally connected with the suit property.
A Single Bench of Justice Rahul Bharti examined the averments in the plaint to determine whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the suit at the inception under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, and held that “rejection of a plaint, however, is a sort of digression of that nature of adjudication of a civil suit and as such, such a digression is not to be served to a civil suit unless and until a plaint is self-inviting the same for its rejection. This is the essence of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908”.
Advocate Arvind Bandral appeared for the appellant, while Advocate Kuldeep Singh Parihar represented the respondents.
Background
The appellant had instituted a civil suit for declaration and consequential reliefs challenging multiple gift deeds, powers of attorney and documents relating to a house property. The suit also sought restoration of possession and transfer of rights in favour of the appellant.
The trial court rejected the plaintiff's claim under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, holding that the appellant had nowhere pleaded how he was legally related to the suit property or how he acquired a right to seek declaratory and possessory reliefs concerning it.
In appeal, the court scrutinised the plaint in its entirety to determine whether the appellant had disclosed any material averment establishing ownership, entitlement, or a right to sue concerning the property in dispute.
Court’s Observation
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court referred extensively to the jurisprudence governing Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC, emphasising that filing a civil suit is a matter of right and that rejection of a plaint must be based solely on the averments contained in the plaint and the documents relied upon by the plaintiff.
The Bench reiterated the Supreme Court’s view in Raj Narain Sarin v. Laxmi Devi, that courts must be “hesitant” in exercising the power to reject a plaint unless the factual foundation squarely meets the statutory requirements. It further noted that the entire reading of the plaint, in the matter at hand, revealed “nowhere a single whisper” of how the appellant was to be reckoned as owner or claimant of the suit property.
The Court observed that the plaint was internally inconsistent, attempting to relate the property to the appellant’s father and deceased uncle without establishing any right in favour of the appellant himself. In the absence of essential facts constituting a right to sue, the plaint was “self-warranting” its rejection.
The Court further cited Kuldeep Singh Pathania v. Bikram Singh Jaryal, reiterating that Order VII Rule 11 requires courts to consider only the plaintiff’s pleadings, excluding the defendant’s rebuttal.
The Bench also referred to Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali to reaffirm that the power under Order VII Rule 11 is a drastic one, meant to terminate suits that are meaningless or bound to fail, so that judicial time is not wasted on futile litigation.
In this light, the High Court agreed that the plaint lacked disclosure of a cause of action and failed to demonstrate the appellant’s right to sue, making the rejection at the threshold justified.
Conclusion
The High Court upheld the trial court’s order rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, holding that the appellant had disclosed no facts establishing a right to sue or any legal nexus with the suit property. The appeal was accordingly dismissed along with all connected matters.
Cause Title: Sunil Singh v. Krishan Lal Gupta & Others (Neutral Citation: 2024:JKLHC-JMU:1910)
Appearances
Appellant: Advocate Arvind Bandral
Respondents: Advocate Kuldeep Singh Parihar
