INTRODUCTION

“Time of court is most precious”. Keeping this notion in mind it can be very well said that the provision of rejection of plaint is a very important aspect of any civil litigation. The underlying purpose behind the enactment of this provision is that the precious time of court should not be wasted due to the faulty actions of the Plaintiff. As was also stated by the hon’ble Supreme Court^[1] (hereinafter referred to as SC), precious time of court should not be wasted due to meaningless litigations which are bound to be dropped at a later stage. Vexatious plaints and the plaints which are used to abuse the process of the court should not be allowed. This provision aims to ensure that only cases with a legitimate cause of action proceed to trial, promoting judicial efficiency and reducing unnecessary burdens on the court system.

Reaffirming the said proposition in the case of Soumitra Kumar Sen v. Shyamal Kumar Sen^[2], the Supreme Court also observed that while considering the question of rejection of a plaint, a court cannot look into the material or averments made in the written statement or raised by the defendant. The court also highlighted the necessity of disclosing all material facts in the plaint by the plaintiff and the application of judicial discretion while rejecting a plaint.

SOUMITRA KUMAR SEN v. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN, (2018) 5 SCC 644

FACTS

M/s Sen Industries (Respondent 4) was a sole proprietorship firm under Soumitra Kumar Sen (Respondent 1). Respondent 4 was granted a long-term leasehold on a plot of land in an industrial area of District Burdwan by the Asansol Durgapur Development Authority (ADDA). Afterwards, Respondent 4 turned into a partnership firm, where the appellant, Respondent 1, and Anjan Mallick (Respondent 2) were partners. Under a memorandum of understanding signed in 1994, the partners agreed that Respondent 1 would leave the firm in exchange for payment of Rs 2,00,000. Consequently, Respondent 1 signed a deed of retirement, which was later executed, and the payment was made. After Respondent 2 retired, the firm carried on its business as a reconstituted partnership firm between the appellant and Respondent 4, with the appellant serving as the sole proprietorship thereafter.

Prior to the title suit in question before the Supreme Court, Respondent 1 had also filed two other suits. He had filed Suit No. 103/1995 against Respondent 2 and the appellant with seeking a permanent injunction, which was later dismissed by the Civil Court, holding that estoppel, waiver, and acquiescence precluded the suit and that Respondent 4 was a partnership firm.

Thereafter, Respondent 1 filed Suit No. 268/2008 seeking the appointment of receivers, dissolution of the partnership firm and claiming accounts. Noting that, in 1994, Respondent 1 had retired from the firm and that the accounts had already been cleared, the Civil Judge dismissed the suit. It is pertinent to mention that this order was subjected to an appeal by Respondent 1, which is still pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Durgapur.

Thereafter, the appellant submitted an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC in the current brought up by Respondent 1, seeking the plaint be rejected on the grounds of res judicata and Section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932. Since this application was dismissed by the Civil Judge and the High Court, the appellant had approached the Supreme Court by way of an appeal.

ISSUES^[3]

Whether the High Court and the Civil Judge had erred in not granting relief to the appellant by rejecting the plaint of Respondent No. 1 under Order 7 Rule 11.

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the Civil Judge and the High Court with respect to the dismissal of the appellant’s application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. The appellant sought rejection of plaint on the basis of res judicata, claiming that the issues raised had previously been heard and substantially decided in former proceedings— Suit No. 103/1995 and Suit No. 268/2008, both of which were dismissed against Respondent 1.

The Court highlighted that the averments in the plaint must be the only thing taken into consideration when considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11; the defendant’s defences, whether in written statements or materials relied upon by them, cannot be taken into consideration. The Court observed that Respondent 1 sought relief in the form of mandatory and permanent injunctions based on a new cause of action, which required a determination of his locus standi. It was noted by the Court that Respondent 1 had failed to mention the former proceedings in his plaint, which might suggest suppression of material facts.

However, the Supreme Court held that the trial court was right to reject the application because maintainability and res judicata could be considered after or before the framing of issues, rather than addressing them at such prior stage. This decision affirms the general rule that merits of the case—including defences and former decisions—should be carefully considered during the trial stage instead of being abruptly dismissed by an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The decision emphasises how important it is to carefully review plaints and make sure that, in the interest of justice, every necessary fact is disclosed.

ANALYSIS

Under the Scheme of the Civil Procedure Code, whenever an application under Order VII Rule 11 is filed before a Civil Court, the court is bound to ensure that it falls within any of the six grounds mentioned under the said rule. Madras HC, in V. Bragan^[4], has clarified that if a case doesn’t fall under any of the grounds mentioned under Order VII Rule 11, the plaint cannot be rejected.

Further, this is a mandatory provision^[5], and any plaint which falls under the ambit of clauses (a) to (f) shall be dismissed. The power under the said provision can be said to be similar to the power of a High Court under Section 482 of CrPC for quashing a criminal proceeding.

Since the word ‘shall’ is used in the provision, judges and court generally play an activist role in these cases and are empowered to exercise the power suo motu in cases where the defendant either wilfully or negligently or due to any other reason fails to file an application for rejection of plaint^[6]. 

CONSIDERATIONS FOR REJECTING A PLAINT

While determining upon the question of rejection of a plaint, the court will only consider the averments made in the plaint along with documents which constitute a part of the plaint. The court will not consider any material or plea which are submitted by the defendant^[7].

Further relying upon the case of Kamla^[8], SC in the present case again reiterated the said proposition. It was clearly made out from the plaint that respondent 1 was indeed the proprietor of the firm in the year 1982. Further, the plaint presented in the suit of 2008 was based on a different cause of action, and therefore, the argument that it was barred by res judicata was not sustained.

The court also reiterated that whether or not the assertions made in the plaint, along with all the material relied upon by the plaintiff, if taken in their entirety, would result in passing of a decree, is the true test for rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11. Further, this power can be exercised at any stage of the trial^[9].

GROUNDS FOR REJECTION OF A PLAINT

Non-disclosure of cause of action (Rule 11(a))

Cause of action, in simple terms, can be said to be the point in time when the plaintiff acquired the right to sue. The expression “cause of action” has not been defined anywhere. However, with the help of various judicial precedents^[10], it can be said that all material facts which in one way or the other justify the plaintiff’s right to sue and, if not proved, will eventually lead to a judgment in favour of the defendant are part of the cause of action.

For rejecting a plaint under this rule, it has to proved that there is no sustainable cause of action in the relief prayed for by the plaintiff^[11]. However, if a prima facie cause of action is made out from the plaint, it cannot be rejected under this ground^[12]. This was one of the major grounds which was raised in the present case, and it was held that irrespective of the fact that there was or not suppression of facts, the plaint did show a cause of action which was different than the previous suit and, hence, the plaint could not be rejected.

The assertions made in the plaint were enough to prove that there exists a cause of action. However, it is to be noted that whether a cause of action is present or not is a question of fact and will have to be determined with regard to the facts and circumstances of each case.

The cause of action, as can be inferred from the plaint, must be real and not illusionary or collusive^[13]. While determining the cause of action, the court does not try the issue so as to affect the merits of the case. The mere fact that there exists a cause of action is sufficient, irrespective of how weak the case may seem^[14]. Lack of cause of action is not a ground for rejection of plaint, but absolute lack is.

Undervaluation of suit by the plaintiff (Rule 11(b))

The responsibility for paying the correct court fees primarily lies with the litigant and is a matter between them and the government. Defendants might raise questions about the inadequacy of the court fees that plaintiffs paid by filing applications or their written statements prior to the main suit’s evidence being presented. Without giving the parties an opportunity to modify the valuation, the court cannot reject the plaint or dismiss the claim for default. The reason is that CPC under Order VII Rule 10 provides that in such case, plaint can only be returned and not rejected. However, in cases of default, the court has no option but to reject it. In Tara Devi^[15], the Supreme Court reaffirmed that, in order to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(b), a court must determine that the relief sought is undervalued, and even after giving directions, the plaintiff failed to comply with them. To guarantee that justice is served, the courts must follow these procedural guidelines.

Barred by Law:

Order VII Rule 11(d) has a narrow application. For its application, It will have to be proved that the suit is barred by law, and this determination will only be made based on the plaint. The law of limitation is also included in the definition of law in clause (d).

It is a well-established principle that just the facts stated in the plaint need to be considered and taken as true. Under this clause, the court cannot reject the plaint if there is any doubt or uncertainty with respect to the same^[16]. However, it is also to be noted that whether or not this objection is raised or not, court is bound to consider such question^[17].

In the present case also, the fact that the suit was barred by section 69 of the Partnership Act was concealed and not mentioned in the plaint. And, therefore, the court was not empowered to reject the plaint as only the facts in the plaint can be considered for rejection. However, the court also observed that such objections can eventually be raised at the later stage of a trial, but not at the time of considering an application for rejection of the plaint.

Other Grounds

As per clause (c), plaint’s valuation has to be written on sufficiently stamped paper. In case of non-compliance, even after the expiry of time given by the court to cure such defect, the plaint can be rejected. Further, (e) mentions that plaint has to be filed in duplicate. Similarly, clause (f) mentions a ground for rejection of a plaint in case the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Order 7 Rule 9 (providing copies of the plaint along with summons). However, all these grounds are procedural in nature and will not directly reject the plaint, but non-compliance, even after the court’s direction, can be a ground for rejection.

The court has the inherent power to stop pointless suits, and in the right circumstances, it may even order that a claim be dismissed. Even in cases when res judicata does not prohibit it, re-litigation on issues that have already been decided are regarded as abuses of process and against public policy. This includes bringing fictitious claims or filing plaint for collateral reasons. To save judicial resources, courts have the authority to summarily dismiss pointless or frivolous cases, although this authority should only be used judiciously and under specific conditions^[18]. To prevent abuse of the judicial process, the court should swiftly reject the plaint in re-litigation cases.

CONCLUSION

Order 7 Rule 11 is an essential safeguard in order to protect the precious time of the court and to avoid abuse of process. The decision of SC in the present case upholds the well-established rules guiding the interpretation of this provision.

The decision highlights that in determining whether to reject a plaint, the court must only take into account the averments stated in the plaint and not the defences raised by the defendant. This approach encourages equity and keeps valid claims from being prematurely rejected. The decision emphasises the necessity of using judicial discretion when rejecting plaints and the necessity of including all material facts in the plaint. Further, such rejection does not bar the filing of a fresh plaint, as provided under Order 7 Rule 13.

The scope of Order 7 Rule 11 has evolved over time as a result of different decisions made by the courts. Although there are limited grounds for rejection, courts have acknowledged that they have the inherent power to stop vexatious suits and procedural abuses. The aforementioned rule has become an essential tool in preserving the credibility of civil litigation since it eliminates frivolous suits and allows only bonafide and honest suits.

---

^[1] Azhar Hussain vs. Rajiv Gandhi 1986 Supp. SCC 315.

^[2] (2018) 5 SCC 644.

^[3] (2018) 5 SCC 644.

^[4] V. Bragan Nayagi v. R.R. Jeyaprakasam, 2015(4) MLJ 538.

^[5] Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali, (2020) 7 SCC 366.

^[6] Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v.. Asstt. Charity Commr., (2004) 3 SCC 137.

^[7] Abdulla Bin Ali v. Galappa, (1985) 2 SCC 54.

^[8] Kamla v. KT Eshwara sa, (2008) 12 SCC 661.

^[9] Saleem Bhai and Ors vs. State of Maharastra AIR 2003 SC 759.

^[10] Usum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, (2004) 6 SCC 254).

^[11] Begum Sahiba v. Nawab Mohd. Mansur, (2007) 4 SCC 343.

^[12] Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Assistant Charity Commissioner, (2004) 3 SCC 137

^[13] ITC Ltd., v. Debt Recovery Tribunal, (1998) 2 SCC 70.

^[14] Liver pool and London SP&I Association v. M.V. Sea success, (2004) 9 SCC 512.

^[15] Tara Devi v. Sri Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj, (1987) 4 SCC 69.

^[16] Beohar Rajendra Sinha v. State of M.P., (1969) 1 SCC 796.

^[17] Sasan Power Ltd. v. North American Coal Corpn. (India) (P) Ltd., (2016) 10 SCC 813.

^[18] Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh, (2020) 16 SCC 601.