Supreme Court clarifies rules for rejecting plaints under Order VII Rule 11 CPC: Geetha vs. Nanjundaswamy (31 October 2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 31 October 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 964

Judges: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J. and Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

Can a court reject a plaint partially, or must it be rejected entirely? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case concerning the partition of joint family property. The core issue revolves around the interpretation and application of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which deals with the rejection of plaints. The Court clarified the principles governing the rejection of plaints and emphasized that a plaint must either be rejected as a whole or not at all. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia.

Case Background

The case involves a dispute over the partition of joint family properties. The plaintiffs, members of a joint family, claimed that the family’s properties, listed in Schedules A and B of the plaint, were subject to partition. They alleged that the family’s patriarch, Munivenkata Bhovi, used to mortgage properties temporarily by executing ‘nominal sale deeds’ and would get them reconveyed after clearing the dues. This practice continued even after his death. The plaintiffs sought partition and separate possession of these properties. Initially, the defendants did not deny the partition but asked the plaintiffs to wait until the revenue records were updated.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court dismissed the defendant’s application for rejection of the plaint, stating that the plaint disclosed a cause of action. However, the High Court, in its revision, observed that the property in survey No. 76/1 (Schedule A) was sold in 1919 through a registered sale deed. The High Court noted that the plaintiffs did not challenge the sale deed directly but claimed a subsequent re-conveyance without proper mutation of revenue records. Consequently, the High Court allowed the application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, in part, rejecting the plaint only with respect to the Schedule A property.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which specifies the grounds for rejecting a plaint. The relevant provision is as follows:

“11. Rejection of plaint.—The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases—
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so;
(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;
(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;
(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9:
Provided that the time fixed by the court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-papers shall not be extended unless the court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.”

The Court emphasized that the power to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 is a drastic one and must be exercised strictly according to the conditions specified. The court also noted that the test for exercising this power is whether, if the averments made in the plaint are taken to be correct in their entirety, a decree would be passed.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The plaintiffs argued that the family had a practice of executing nominal sale deeds to raise finances, which were later reconveyed. They claimed that despite these nominal sales, the family remained in possession of the properties.
• The plaintiffs contended that the defendants initially agreed to the partition but later started creating problems and attempting to alienate the properties.
• The plaintiffs asserted that the High Court erred in partially rejecting the plaint, which is not permissible under Order VII Rule 11, CPC.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents supported the High Court’s decision, arguing that the plaintiffs’ claim regarding the Schedule A property was not maintainable due to the 1919 sale deed.
• They contended that the plaintiffs did not provide any evidence to challenge the sale deed or seek a declaration against it.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court identified the following issues for consideration:

1. The true and correct application of the principle underlying the ‘rejection of plaints’ under Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to the facts of the case.
2. The legality of rejection of a plaint in part.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court referred to the following cases and legal provisions:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali, [(2020) 7 SCC 366]* to explain the principles and object of Order VII Rule 11, CPC, stating that it is a special remedy to summarily dismiss a suit at the threshold.
• The Court cited Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, [1986 Supp SCC 315]* to emphasize that the purpose of Order VII Rule 11 is to prevent meaningless litigation from wasting judicial time.
• The Supreme Court referred to Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I, [(2004) 9 SCC 512]* to highlight that a court must determine whether a plaint discloses a cause of action by scrutinizing its averments and relied upon documents.
• The Court referred to Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Charity Commr., [(2004) 3 SCC 137]* to state that the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement are irrelevant at the stage of considering Order VII Rule 11.
• The Supreme Court cited Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. v. Hede & Co., [(2007) 5 SCC 614]* to clarify that the plaint must be read as a whole and not in isolation.
• The Court used D. Ramachandran v. R.V. Janakiraman, [(1999) 3 SCC 267]* to support the view that if the allegations in the plaint prima facie show a cause of action, the court cannot inquire into the truth of the allegations.
• The Supreme Court relied on Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra, [(2003) 1 SCC 557]* to state that the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC may be exercised at any stage of the suit.
• The Court followed Maqsud Ahmad v. Mathra Datt & Co, [AIR 1936 Lahore 1021]* to emphasize that a plaint cannot be rejected in part.
• The Supreme Court followed Sejal Glass Ltd. v. Navilan Merchants (P) Ltd, [(2018) 11 SCC 780]* and Madhav Prasad Aggarwal v. Axis Bank Ltd., [(2019) 7 SCC 158]* to reiterate that a plaint must be rejected as a whole or not at all.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following:

• Adherence to Procedural Law: The Court emphasized the importance of strictly adhering to the procedural requirements of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. It noted that the power to reject a plaint is a drastic one and must be exercised only when the conditions specified in the rule are met.

• Scope of Order VII Rule 11: The Court clarified that the purpose of Order VII Rule 11 is to prevent frivolous and vexatious litigation at the threshold. However, it should not be used to pre-judge the merits of a case, which is to be determined during trial.

• Holistic Reading of Plaint: The Court reiterated that the plaint should be read as a whole, and the averments should be taken as true for the purpose of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11. The court cannot pick out a sentence or passage in isolation.

• Rejection of Plaint in Part: The Court firmly held that a plaint cannot be rejected partially. It must either be rejected as a whole or not at all. This principle has been consistently followed in previous judgments.

• Merits of the Case: The Court noted that the High Court had erred in examining the merits of the case and pre-judging the truth and validity of the sale deed. The Court emphasized that the merits of the case are to be decided during trial, based on the evidence adduced by the parties.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• A plaint must be read as a whole, and its averments should be taken as true for the purpose of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC.
• The court cannot pre-judge the truth or legality of the averments in the plaint at the stage of considering an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC.
• A plaint cannot be rejected in part; it must be rejected as a whole or not at all.
• The merits of the case are to be decided during trial, based on the evidence adduced by the parties.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the Trial Court to take up the trial and dispose of the suit expeditiously, given that the suit was instituted in 2005.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a plaint cannot be rejected in part under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This judgment reinforces the established legal position that a plaint must be rejected as a whole or not at all. There is no change in the previous position of law, but this judgment reiterates the importance of strict adherence to procedural law and the correct application of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment. The Court clarified that the High Court erred in partially rejecting the plaint and in pre-judging the merits of the case. The Supreme Court emphasized that a plaint must be considered in its entirety, and if it discloses a cause of action, it should not be rejected at the threshold. The matter has been sent back to the trial court for expeditious disposal.