REJECTION OF PLAINT

In a civil suit, through a Plaint, the Plaintiff invokes the

jurisdiction of the Court and seeks relief(s) and remedies in

accordance with law.

A civil suit is based on the doctrine “Where there is a right;

there is a remedy”.

A civil suit is filed by presenting a plaint . If the plaint is

defective on any of the grounds mentioned in Order – 7 , Rule

– 11 of C.P.C , the plaint can be rejected by the Court .

Order VII Rule 11 of the Code:

“ 1 1 . 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

returned upon paper insuffi ciently 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 relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is

returned upon paper insuffi ciently 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 provision of

Rule 9:

OBJECT OF ORDER VII RULE 11

The real object of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code is to

keep out of courts irresponsible law suits.

Therefore, the Order X of the Code is a tool in the hands

of the Courts by resorting to which if the Court is prima

facie of the view that the suit is an abuse of the process

of the court in the sense that it is a bogus and

irresponsible litigation, the jurisdiction under Order VII

Rule 11 of the Code can be exercised.

.

Stage at which Court may reject the Plaint

The power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code

can be exercised at any stage of the suit

either before registering the plaint or after the

issuance of summons to the defendants or at

any time

before the conclusion of the trial.

The provisions of Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC does

not place any restriction or limitation on the

exercise of court’s power;

it does not either expressly or by necessary

implication provide that power under Order VII,

Rule11 should be exercised at a particular stage

only. In the absence of any restriction placed by

the statutory provision, it is open to the court to

exercise that power at any stage.

This position was explained by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Saleem Bhai & Ors. vs.

State of

Maharashtra and Others, (2003) 1 SCC

557, in which, while considering Order VII

Rule 11 of the Code

“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.”

One of the foremost and main grounds for such mandatory rejection of plaint is when the

WHEN THE PLAINT DOES NOT DISCLOSE CAUSE OF ACTION

GROUNDS FOR REJECTIONOF PLAINT

While scrutinizing the plaint averments, it is the

bounden duty of the trial Court to ascertain the

materials for cause of action. The cause of action is a

bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to

them gives the plaintiff the right to relief against the

defendant. Every fact which is necessary for the

plaintiff to prove to enable him to get a decree should

be set out in clear terms.

It is worthwhile to find out the meaning of the words

“cause of action”. A cause of action must include some

act done by the defendant since in the absence of such

an act no cause of action can possibly accrue.

In Bloom Dekor Ltd. vs. Subhash Himatlal

Desai & Ors. (1994) 6 SCC 322, wherein a

three Judge Bench of this Court held as under:

By “cause of action” it is meant every fact,

which, if traversed, it would be necessary for

the plaintiff to prove in order to support his

right to a judgment of the Court, (Cooke v. Gill,

1873 LR 8 CP 107). In other words, a bundle of

facts which it is necessary for the plaintiff to

prove in order to succeed in the suit.”

 In Hari Shanker Jain v. Sonia Gandhi(2001) 8

SCC 233, a three- Judge Bench of this Court held

that the expression ‘cause of action’ would

mean facts to be proved, if traversed, in order

to support his right to the judgment of the court

and that the function of the party is to present a

full picture of the cause of action with such

further information so as to make opposite party

understand the case he will have to meet

In exercise of the  power under Order VII, Rule 11(a), the plaint can be rejected only on the ground that there is a failure to plead material facts  constituting the cause of action. Absence of a single material fact entails the consequences of rejection of plaint.

Order VI Rule 2(1) of the Code states the basic and cardinal rule of pleadings declares that the pleading has to state material facts and not the evidence. It mandates that every pleading shall contain, and contain only, a statement in a concise form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence, as the case may be, but not the evidence by which they are to proved.

There is distinction between 'material facts' and

'particulars'. The words 'material facts' show that

the facts necessary to formulate a complete

cause of action must be stated. Omission of a

single

material fact leads to an incomplete cause of

action and the statement or plaint becomes bad

Thus It is mandatory that in order to get relief, the

plaintiff has to aver all material facts forming a

‘cause of action’. In other words, it is necessary

for the plaintiff to aver and prove in order to

succeed in the suit.

Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code has limited application. It must be shown that the suit is barred under any law. Such a conclusion must be drawn from the averments made in the plaint

What would be relevant for invoking clause (d) of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code are the averments made in the plaint. For that purpose, there cannot be any addition or subtraction.

BARRED BY LAW

For the purpose of invoking Order 7 Rule 11(d) of

the Code, no amount of evidence can be looked

into. The issues on merit of the matter which may

arise between the parties would not be within the

realm of the court at that stage.

Clause (d) of Order VII Rule 7 speaks of suit, as

appears from the statement in the plaint to be

barred by any law. Disputed questions cannot be

decided at the time of considering an application

filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Clause (d) of Rule

11 of Order VII applies in those cases only

where the statement made by the plaintiff in the

plaint, without any doubt or dispute shows that the

suit is barred by any law in force

The statute i.e. Limitation Act is founded on the most

salutary principle of general and public policy and

incorporates a principle of great benefit to the

community. It has, with great propriety, been termed

a statute of repose, peace and justice. It has been said

by John Voet, with singular felicity, that controversies

are limited to a fixed period of time, lest they should

be immortal while men are mortal

BARRED BY LIMITATION

N. Balakrishanan v. M. Krishna Murthy (1998

(7) SCC 123 it has been held that

“The statute discourages litigation by burying in

one common receptacle of all the accumulations

of past times which are unexplained and have not

from lapse of time become inexplicable.

The law of limitation fixes a life-span for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered.

Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time, newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts.

So, a life-span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty consequential anarchy.

The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to

litigation). The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for legislatively fixed period of time.

Thus from the above referances ti is to be construed

that :

Clause (d) of Order VII Rule 7 speaks of suit, as

appears from the statement in the plaint to be

barred by limitation. Disputed questions cannot be

decided at the time of considering an application

filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Clause (d) of Rule

11 of Order VII applies in those cases only

where the statement made by the plaintiff in the

plaint, without any doubt or dispute shows that the

suit is barred by law of limitation.

Order VII, Rule 11 – A tool to reject vexatious or frivolous litigation

T.Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal and Anr. (1977 (4) SCC 46

The trial Court must remember that if on a meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint it ismanifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, it shouldexercise the power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code taking care to see that the ground mentionedtherein is fulfilled. If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it has to be nippedin the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order X of the Code

What is to be determined by the Court at the stage of

deciding as to whether the plaint discloses any cause

of action or not, is to find out from the allegations of

the plaint itself as to whether a bogus, wholly

vexatious or frivolous litigation was sought to be

initiated under the garb of ingenious drafting of the

plaint and to guard against the mischief of a litigant

misusing the process of the Court, by entering into a

false litigation, merely for the purposes of harassing

the other party and obtaining undue advantage of the

process of the Court by adopting tactics and in

starting sham and shady

actions

In Dindigul Pettai Sathangudi Shatriya Nadar

Uravinmurai v. Selvaraj, reported in 2009 (2) CTC

57, this Court (S.PALANIVELU, J), has held that

provisions of Order VII Rule 11 CPC are not

exhaustive, however Court has got inherent powers

to see that vexatious litigations are not allowed to

consume time of the Court and accordingly, court

can reject the plaint, if allegations in plaint reveals

an abuse of process of law.

In Seeni alias Sundarammal v. Ramasamy Poosari,

 reported in 2000 (III) CTC 74, this Court (A.RAMAN,J),

has held that process of Court should not be misused

or abused but shall be used bonafidely and properly.

The Court should prevent improper use of litigative

process. The question whether litigation is frivolous or

abuse of process has to be judged from the angle of

interest of justice and public policy. As the litigation

had abused process of Court, it was held that High

Court, while exercising its power of superintendence

can step in, where there is blatant violation of process

of Court.

In Maria Soosai and another v. Esakkiammal, reported in 1999-1-LW 727, this Court (S.S.SUBRAMANI, J), relying on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in K.K.Modi v. K.N.Modi, (1982 (2) AIR SCW 116), has held thus:"Frivolous or vexatious proceedings may also amount to an abuse of the process of Court, especially where the proceedings are absolutely groundless. The Court then has the power to stop such proceedings summarily and prevent the time of the public and the Court from being wasted. Undoubtedly, it is a matter of Courts' discretion whether such proceedings should be stopped or not; and this discretion has to be exercised with circumspection. It is a jurisdiction which should be sparingly exercised and exercised only in special cases. "

The High court being the superintending court over the subordinate Courts, including Tribunals can interfere, if there is clear abuse of process of Court, based on the averments or pleadings of the plaint. If it is established that the suit has been filed as an abuse of process of Court, in order to prevent the abuse of process of court and to avoid miscarriage of justice, this Court has to order strike off the plaint

POWERS OF THE COURT UNDER UNDER ARTICLE 227

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in cantena of decisions

has categorically ruled that where there is abuse of

process of Court or filing the suit itself is contrary to

justice and against public policy, this Court has to

exercise its power under Article 227 of the

Constitution.

If it is a frivolous or vexatious suit, as per the

pleadings of the plaint and the Court process is

being wasted, this Court has to exercise its power

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to

strike off the plaint. 

33. In Southern and Rajamani Transport Private Limited v.

R.Srinivasan, reported in 2010 (4) CTC 690, this Court (A.SELVAM, J)

has held that alternative remedy under CPC is not a bar to invoke

the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

In Ramiah Asari v. Kurshad Begaum, reported in 1999 (I) CTC

600, this Court (S.S.SUBRAMANI,J), relying on the decision

in K.K.Modi v. K.N.Modi, (1998) 3 SCC 573, held that the

Court should invoke its inherent power to strike off plaint

when it comes to the conclusion that the claim has been

made only for collateral purpose or is spurious one or of

frivolous nature or improper use of machinery of court or its

continued prosecution results in vexatious litigation.

. In K.K.Modi v. K.N.Modi, reported in (1998) 3 SCC 573, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows :

 A proceeding being filed for a collateral purpose, or a spurious claim being made in litigation may also in

a given set of facts amount to an abuse of the process of the court. Frivolous or vexatious

proceedings may also amount to an abuse of the process of the court, especially where the

proceedings are absolutely groundless. The court then has the power to stop such proceedings

summarily and prevent the time of the public and the court from being wasted. Undoubtedly, it is a

matter of the courts discretion whether such proceedings should be stopped or not; and this

discretion has to be exercised with circumspection. It is a jurisdiction which should be sparingly exercised,

and exercised only in special cases. The Court should also be satisfied that there is no chance of

the suit succeeding."

Thus the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions referred to above has categorically ruled that where there is abuse of process of Court or filing the suit itself is contrary to justice and against public policy, this Court has to exercise its power under Article 227 of the Constitution. If it is a frivolous or vexatious suit, as per the pleadings of the plaint and the Court process is being wasted, this Court has to exercise its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to strike off the plaint. When the Court is satisfied that there is no chance of the suit succeeding, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in K.K.Modi v. K.N.Modi a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has to be allowed by this Court, to prevent abuse of process of law and to meet the ends of justice.

In N.A.Chinnasamy vs S.Vellingirinathan on 9 October, 2013 It was held by this Hon’ble court that “In view of the legal presumption under Section 114 (e) of the Indian Evidence Act, the respondent / plaintiff is estopped from raising such a frivolous and vexatious plea, 12 years after the execution of the sale deed, that was acted upon, stating that he had signed ice, thinking that it was only a mortgage deed. In view of the legal presumption under Section 114 (e) of the Indian Evidence Act, the respondent / plaintiff is estopped from raising such a frivolous and vexatious plea, 12 years after the execution of the sale deed, that was acted upon, stating that he had signed before the Sub-Registrar Office, thinking that it was only a mortgage deed.”

“There is no legally acceptable cause of action

available to the respondent / plaintiff, for the relief

sought for in the plaint, the suit is also barred by

statute, namely the Limitation Act, hence, this

Court is of the view that there is no chance of the

suit succeeding and accordingly, to meet the ends of

justice and to prevent abuse of process of court,

this revision has to be allowed and pass orders to

struck off the plaint, invoking Article 227 of the

Constitution.”

This Hon’ble court Further held that

“it is a settled proposition of law that to exercise the

superintending power under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India and to struck off plaint, this Court

should come to a conclusion, that the suit is an abuse

of process of law, based on the plaint averments and

the admission made by the plaintiff and to decide the

same, the provision under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has

also got relevancy.”

REJECTION OF PLAINT AS A WHOLE

In Roop Lal Sathi v. Nachhattar Singh Gill (1982 (3) SCC 487),As was observed by this Court only a part of the plaint cannot be rejected and if no cause of action is disclosed, the plaint as a whole must be rejected.averments in the plaint as a whole have to be seen to find out whether clause(d) of Rule 11 of Order VII was applicable.

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.It is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage and to read it out of the context inisolation. Although it is the substance and not merely the form that has to be looked into, thepleading has to be construed as it stands without addition or subtraction of 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.

Thus from the above discussions it can be concluded that the Plaint cannot be rejected

in part but has to be rejected as a whole.

Can Court reject the Plaint against one or more Defendants only?

There is no bar in invoking the powers of the court under Order VII Rule 11 for rejecting the Plaint against one or some of the Defendants only if the Plaint does not disclose any cause of action against that or those Defendants.

REMEDY AVAILABLE WHEN PLAINT IS REJECTED

In any event, rejection of the plaint under Rule 11 does not preclude the plaintiffs from presenting a fresh plaint in terms of Rule 13.But the suit itself is dismissed under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 as vexatious and frivolous the plaint cannot be represented freshly.

CONCLUSIONIt would be worthwhile to read the words of Justice

V R Krishna Iyer2, who, writing for the SupremeCourt, had said as follows:

“It may be a valuable contribution to the cause ofjustice if the counsel screens wholly fraudulent and

frivolous litigation refusing to be beguiled by dubiousclients. And remembering that an advocate is an

officer of justice he owes it to society not tocollaborate in shady actions.”

BYCHITHRA.S