Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 recognizes the power of
ultimate jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to try all Suits of civil nature. But
this power is subordinate to the provisions of the Code itself; one of these
limitations is stated under Order VII Rule 10. The Court in which a Plaint is
presented may accept the Plaint, or reject the Plaint, or it may return the
Plaint to the Plaintiff. It is a first duty of Court, before which a Suit is
instituted to properly examine the Plaint, for the purpose of determining,
whether it should be returned, or rejected and in order to determine, the
question of rejection it is the responsibility the Court to take into
consideration other materials too, Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 states the grounds on which the Plaint should be rejected.
The provision contained in Order VII Rule 11 of the Code are mandatory and the
Court has no discretion to reject the Plaint once contingencies specified in the
provision occur. Before rejecting the Plaint, opportunity should be given to the
Plaintiff to remove the ground of objection wherever possible to do so.
The filing of a Plaint is a sine qua non for institution of a Suit. It is
basically a statement of claims, treated as a repository of facts by the Court.
Thus, every Court is obligated to analyze the Plaint, and decide whether it is
fit to be admitted or not.
Rule 11 under Order VII of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 delineates certain
grounds under which the Court shall reject a Plaint.
- where it does not disclose a cause of action;
- 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;
- 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;
- where the Suit appears from the statement in the Plaint to be barred by
- where it is not filed in duplicate;
- where the Plaintiff fails comply with the provision of Rule 9 (which
specifies the procedure after admission of the Plaint).
At what stage can Plaint be rejected?
If found to be deficient of any of the above mentioned factors, a Plaint may be
rejected by the Court of its own motion or upon filing of an application in that
behalf by the opposite party, at any stage of the proceedings, before conclusion
of trial. The position was settled by the Supreme Court in Sopan Sukhdeo
Sable & Ors. Vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner & Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 137,
whereby it observed:
The Trial Court can exercise the power at any stage of the suit - before
registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time
before the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of deciding an application
under clauses (a) and (d) of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, the averments in the
plaint are the germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written
statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage.
Further, it has been time and again held that once an application seeking
rejection of Plaint is moved by the Respondent, it is essential to decide upon
the application before proceeding further and that the Respondent cannot be
compelled to file a Written Statement until such application is disposed of.
There is no point or sense in proceeding with the trial of the case, in case the
Plaint is only to be rejected at the threshold. Therefore, the Defendant is
entitled to file the application for rejection before filing his Written
Statement. In case, the application is rejected, the Defendant is entitled to
file his Written Statement thereafter. But once an application for rejection is
filed, the Court has to dispose of the same before proceeding with the
trial, the Supreme Court held in R. K. Roja Vs U. S. Rayudu & Anr.,
(2016) 14 SCC 275.
It must be noted however that an order of rejection of plaint is a deemed
decree, as defined under Section 2 (2) of the Code. It is thus an appealable
Effect of rejection of Plaint on limitation
An order of rejection of a Plaint does not preclude a party from presenting a
fresh Plaint, in respect of the same cause of action, as per Rule 13 of Order 7
of the Code. It is merely an Order, indicating that the rejected Plaint does not
meet the requisite standards.
Thus, while computing the limitation for such Plaints when filed afresh, the
Courts might extend the benefit of bonafide litigation under Section 14 of the
Limitation Act, and the time wasted thereon, before the Plaint was rejected,
will be excluded. There is a decision from the Calcutta High Court on this
point. In that case, the Plaint was rejected after the Suit was found to be
non-maintainable; but the High Court declared the period of prosecution of the
Civil Suit as period exempted under Section 14 of the Limitation Act (Anjan
Choudhury Vs Anandneer Co-operative Registered Housing Society & Ors., AIR 1990
Can Plaint be rejected in part?
No, a Plaint can either be rejected as a whole or not at all, held the Supreme
Court in Sejal Glass Limited Vs. Navilan Merchants Private Limited, AIR 2017 SC
In the said case, Justice R. F. Nariman had held that the word Plaint, as used
in Rule 11 necessarily means the Plaint as a whole and that if only a portion of
the Plaint, as opposed to the Plaint as a whole is to be struck out, Order VI
Rule 16 of the Code, which relates to striking out pleadings, would apply. The
Court also clarified that where the Plaint is barred qua one Defendant but
maintainable vis-à-vis others, the Plaint cannot and should not be rejected as a
whole. In all such cases, if the Plaint survives against certain Defendants
and/or properties, Order VII Rule 11 will have no application at all, and the
Suit as a whole must then proceed to trial, it held.
The position was thereafter reaffirmed, by the Supreme Court in Madhav Prasad
Aggarwal Vs Axis Bank, 2019 (3) Law Herald (SC) 2012 arising out of SLP (C)
No.31579 of 2018 decided on 01.07.2019. In the said case, Axis Bank being one of
the Respondents filed a Notice of Motion under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908, on the ground that the Suit against it was barred
under Section 34 of SARFAESI Act.
Setting aside the High Courts order that allowed the motion, the Supreme Court
Indubitably, the Plaint can and must be rejected in exercise of powers under
Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC on account of non-compliance of mandatory
requirements or being replete with any institutional deficiency at the time of
presentation of the Plaint, ascribable to clauses (a) to (f) of Rule 11 of Order
7 of CPC. In other words, the Plaint as presented must proceed as a whole or can
be rejected as a whole but not in part. In that sense, the relief claimed by
Respondent No.1 in the notice of motion(s) which commended to the High Court, is
clearly a jurisdictional error. The fact that one or some of the reliefs claimed
against Respondent No.1 in the concerned Suit is barred by Section 34 of 2002
Act or otherwise, such objection can be raised by invoking other remedies
including under Order 6 Rule 16 of CPC at the appropriate stage.
Important grounds of rejection
1. Plaint does not disclose cause of action
Cause of action, though not defined in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is a
bundle of facts necessary to give the Plaintiff a right to relief (See Church
of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society Vs. Ponniamman
Educational Trust, AIR 2012 SC 3912). Thus, cause of action may be
constituted by instances of breach of a contract, any civil injury (actionable
in a Court of Law), non-payment of dues, etc.
Non-disclosure of cause of action is a valid ground for rejection of Plaint;
however, to exercise its powers under this ground, the Court must be satisfied
that even if all the facts disclosed in the Plaint were true, the Plaintiff will
not be entitled to any relief [Hardesh Ores Pvt. Ltd Vs. M/S. Hede And
Company (2006) 5 SCC 658].
A landmark ruling on this subject is in the case of T. Arivandanam Vs. T.V.
Satyapal & Anr., 1978 SCR (1) 742, whereby, it was held that if the Plaint
is manifestly vexatious, meritless and groundless, in the sense that it does not
disclose a clear right to sue, it would be right and proper to exercise power
under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. A mere contemplation or possibility that a
right may be infringed without any legitimate basis for that right, would not be
sufficient to hold that the Plaint discloses a cause of action.
Adding to this, in 1998 Supreme Court observed that entirety of the averments in
the Plaint have to be taken into account while considering a plea seeking
rejection of Plaint. While disposing of a case titled Raptakos Brett & Co.Ltd.
Vs. Ganesh Property, [1998 (7) SCC 184], the Bench observed,
There cannot be any compartmentalization, dissection, segregation and inversions
of the language of various paragraphs in the Plaint. If such a course is adopted
it would run counter to the cardinal canon of interpretation according to which
a pleading has to be read as a whole to ascertain its true import. It is not
permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage and to read it out of the
context in isolation. Although, it is the substance and not merely the form that
has to be looked into, the pleading has to be construed as it stands without
addition or subtraction or words or change of its apparent grammatical sense.
The intention of the party concerned is to be gathered primarily from the tenor
and terms of his pleadings taken as a whole. At the same time it should be borne
in mind that no pedantic approach should be adopted to defeat justice on hair-
Another important factor to be kept in mind while determining Whether the Plaint
discloses a cause of action or not? is that averments in Plaint alone are
relevant. No other filings can be considered for establishing the same.
In Saleem Bhai & Ors. Vs. State Of Maharashtra & Ors., (2003) 1 SCC 557,
it was held that For the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a)
and (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII C.P.C. the averments in the Plaint are germane;
the pleas taken by the defendant in the Written Statement would be wholly
irrelevant at that stage…
The position was recently reiterated by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Savita
Sharma & Ors. Vs Master Abeer Singh & Ors. as under,
when a case of this nature comes to a Court it is not proper to allow the
application [for rejection of Plaint] only on mere asking, the Court has to
examine the pleadings made in the Plaint read with the conditions set out in
Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC referred to supra, otherwise, it will result into
miscarriage of justice.
2. Suit is Undervalued
Sub-rule (b) under Rule 11 of Order VII of the Code stipulates that if the
relief being claimed by the Plaintiff is undervalued, the Court may prescribe
some time for the claim to be corrected. If the Plaintiff fails to comply with
the same, the Plaint may then be rejected. This provision is essential for the
purposes of the Court Fees Act, so as to ensure that the Plaintiff does not
undervalue the Suit only to escape from payment of adequate court fees.
In Meenakshi Sundaram Chettiar Vs. Venkatachalam Chettiar, 1979 SCR (3)
385, the Supreme Court had held that sub-rule (b) casts a duty on the Court to
reject the Plaint when the relief claimed is undervalued. If on the materials
available before it the Court is satisfied that the value of relief as estimated
by the Plaintiff in a Suit for accounts is undervalued the Plaint is liable to
be rejected. It is therefore necessary that the Plaintiff should take care that
the valuation is adequate and reasonable taking into account the circumstances
of the case. The Supreme Court further noted that in Suit for accounts, a
Plaintiff may not able to ascertain the exact amount for the purpose of
valuation of the Suit. In this regard it clarified that;
In coming to the conclusion that the Suit is undervalued the Court will have to
take into account that in a Suit for accounts the Plaintiff is not obliged to
state the exact amount which would result after the taking of the accounts. If
he cannot estimate the exact amount he can put a tentative valuation upon the
suit for accounts which is adequate and reasonable. The Plaintiff cannot
arbitrarily and deliberately undervalue the relief.
3. Plaint Insufficiently Stamped
Sub-rule (c) under Rule 11 of Order VII of the Code clearly stipulates that if a
Plaint has been written on a paper which has not been duly stamped and
authorized, the Court may prescribe some to time make good the deficiency. If
the Plaintiff fails to comply with the same, the Plaint may then be rejected.
This again, is essential for the reasons for the court fees under the Court Fee
Pertinently, this provision does not refer to insufficiency of stamp duty on any
of the documents that are subject matter of the case. For instance, in a suit
for recovery of money in Sh. Ramesh Chand Vs. Sh. Harish Bhardwaj, the
Delhi High Court dismissed the Defendants application for rejection of Plaint,
moved on the grounds that the lease document on the basis of which the Plaintiff
sought recovery was insufficiently stamped. The High Court held,
The defendant has merely averred that the lease agreement is insufficiently
stamped, however, he has not averred as to how much is the sufficient stamp duty
and what is the difference between the actual stamp duty and the paid stamp
duty. Moreover, the defendant is required to lead evidence to prove that
insufficient stamp duty has been paid on the lease agreement and this fact
cannot be decided at this stage on a mere perusal of bald averments.
Accordingly, this ground is also not maintainable.
Since, the Suit is not apparently bad for want of cause of action or barred by
law, it cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
Note: A person who is unable to, due to his financial status, afford the
abovementioned court fees / stamp paper, can apply as an Indigent person in
accordance with Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
4. Suit appears to be barred by any law
Where a Suit appears from the statement in the Plaint to be barred by any law,
it is liable to be rejected. This includes a bar created due to lapse of
limitation period. However, if the question of limitation relates to the merits
of the case, the same will be decided with other issues, and not at the outset.
In Raghwendra Sharan Singh Vs Ram Prasanna Singh, AIR 2019 SC 1430, the
Supreme Court had unequivocally held that,
Considering the averments in the Plaint if it is found that the Suit is clearly
barred by law of limitation, the same can be rejected in exercise of powers
under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the CPC.
In that case, the Plaintiff had tried to cover up the bar of limitation by
clever drafting. Condemning the same, the Court said a Plaintiff cannot be
allowed to circumvent that provision by means of clever drafting so as to avoid
mention of those circumstances, by which the Suit is barred by law of
Considering the averments in the Plaint and the bundle of facts stated in the
Plaint, we are of the opinion that by clever drafting the Plaintiff has tried to
bring the Suit within the period of limitation which, otherwise, is barred by
law of limitation. Therefore…as the Suit is clearly barred by law of limitation,
the Plaint is required to be rejected in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule
11 of the CPC, the Court had held.
Likewise, failure to meet the pre-requisites for filing a Suit, such as service
of notice as per Section 80 of the Code, three months prior to institution of a
Suit against the Government, is also a ground for rejection.
Note: Institution of a Suit before a Civil Court is also barred by
certain Special Statues, such as the Consumer Protection Act, the IBC, SARFAESI,
Act etc., since these matters fall within the purview of dedicated Tribunals.
However, in such a scenario, the Plaint is not rejected for being barred by law
but is rather returned under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code, for presentation
before a forum of competent jurisdiction.
Are false cause of action, fraud, misrepresentation or abuse of process of
Court, etc. grounds for rejection?
Suppression of facts, misrepresentation, fraud or even abuse of process of
court, are not inculcated as grounds for rejection of Plaint under Order VII
Rule 11 of the Code.
In R. Arumugam Vs. Pr. Palanisamy, one of the original Defendants had
argued before the Madras High Court that the grounds listed under the said Rule
are not exhaustive and the above mentioned grounds should also be considered
while hearing an application for rejection of Plaint.
Declining this argument, the High Court held that it is a settled law that only
the contents of the Plaint are relevant at the time of hearing an application
under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code. For determination of fraud,
misrepresentation, etc. however, the Court will have to travel beyond the scope
of the Plaint, and look into the Written Statement, Evidence, etc. Thus, the
questions of fraud, misrepresentation, etc. are preliminary issues that are
subject matter of trial.
The mere suppression of fact alone shall not be the ground for holding that the
Plaint lacks pleadings regarding cause of action. When a Plaint contains clear
pleadings spelling out the cause of action, the question whether such a cause of
action is true or not cannot be the scope of enquiry in an application under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Whether there is any suppression of material facts, can
be ascertained only from the pleadings made in the Written Statement and the
evidence to be adduced by the parties. This Court holds that suppression of
material facts alone shall not entitle a defendant to have the Plaint rejected
as one lacking in cause of action under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court said.
5. Plaint is not filed in duplicate
Clauses (e) and (f) in Order VII Rule 11 are additional grounds for rejection of
the Plaint and were instituted by the Amendment Act of 1999 and further
substituted by the Amendment Act 0f 2002. Clause (e) of Rule 11 states that the
Plaint shall be rejected where it is not filed in duplicate to the Court,
however, Rule 3 of Order IV says that the Plaint shall not be deemed to be duly
instituted unless it complies with the requirements specified in sub-rule (1)
and (2). Whereas O VII Rule 11 says the Plaint would be rejected where it is not
filed in duplicate and not considered to be not duly instituted as stipulated by
Rule 3 of Order IV.
Non-conformity of the provisions of O IV Rule 1 leads to the dismissal of the
Suit, whereas, non-conformity of the provisions of Clause (e) of Rule 11 of
Order VII leads to rejection of the Plaint. The remedy in both the cases is
different, whereas, in one case appeal can be filed to get Suit restored, in the
other the remedy is revision. These amendments should have been brought only one
consequence in case of non-conformity of the said provisions that either a
dismissal of a Suit or a rejection of the Plaint. Accordingly, even the remedy
should have been the same, which has been overlooked in the present amendment.
Clause (f) of Rule 11 states that where the Plaintiff fails to comply with the
provisions of Rule 9 wherein it is stated that the process fee and the copies of
the Plaint are to be filed within seven days from the date of order of summons
on the Defendant, the Plaint would be rejected. This seems to be a little harsh
provision as the non-compliance of Rule 9 of Order VII results in rejection of
This provision should have come into effect where there was a repeated failure
by the Plaintiff regarding the provisions of Clause (e) and (f). It may have at
best called for return of Plaint and not rejection of Plaint. However, the
positive side of this amendment would be that the Plaintiff would be vigilant in
complying with the provisions of Rule 9 of Order VII and would, within the
prescribed time, file the process fee and requisite copies of the Plaint.
The Code of Civil Procedure is an exhaustive statute which covers the whole
procedure which needs to be followed by all the Civil Courts in India. The
Plaint is the first step to filing a Suit in the Court. It needs to be drafted
with due diligence. It must include all the particulars that have been mentioned
in Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Perusal of Order VII Rule 11
of Code shows that the Plaint can be rejected only if it appears from the
statement in the Plaint to be barred by any law. Even if the expression of the
statement in the Plaint is given a liberal meaning, document filed with the
Plaint may be looked into but nothing more.
If on a meaningful - not formal - reading of the Plaint it is manifestly found
to be vexatious or meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to
sue, the Court shall exercise its power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 taking care to see that the grounds mentioned therein are
fulfilled, and if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action
, the Court should nip it in the bud at the first hearing, by examining the
party searchingly, under Order X of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. [T.
Arivandantan Vs Satyapal, AIR 1977 SC 242]. The Order VII Rule 11 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 does not justify the rejection of any particular
portion of the Plaint. The concept of partial rejection is apparently
inapplicable to the provisions of Order VII Rule 11. [ABN-AMRO Bank Vs Punjab
Planning and Development Authority, AIR 2000 P&H 44].
Written By: Dinesh Singh Chauhan, Advocate, High Court of Judicature,
Email: [email protected], [email protected]