REJECTION OF PLAINT IN A CIVIL SUIT

[Mr. M. GOVINDARAJAN]

Rejection of plaint

The Civil Procedure Code (‘Code’ for short) provides for the remedy of rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11, on certain specifically stated grounds-

• 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 any law;
• where it is not filed in duplicate;
• where the plaintiff fails comply with the provision of Rule 9.

Non disclosure of cause of action

Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code elaborates on the rejection of the plaints in certain circumstances.  It has mentioned certain grounds on the basis of which, the plaints are rejected by the Courts.  One of them is non mentioning the cause of action that the plaintiff seeks against the defendant.  Cause of action is a set of allegations or facts that make up the basis of filing a civil suit in Court.  A plaint can very well be rejected by the Court, if the plaint does not disclose any cause of action.  Without a cause of action a civil suit cannot be arise. 

In ‘K. Palaniappan v. Dhanalakshmi and others’ - (2023) 2 MLJ 404, the appellant/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S. 16 of 2023 against the respondents/defendants claiming the relief of specific performance of the agreement dated 30.12.2009.  The defendants filed their written statement.  Pending suit, the defendants filed an application under order 7 Rule 11 of the Code for rejection of plaint in IA No. 73 of 2013.  The defendant raised the following grounds for rejection of the plaint-

1. The plaintiff, in his plaint, by listing of five properties, has claimed the relief of specific performance in respect of the said five properties, but the said properties do not find place in the suit sale agreement dated 30.12.2009.
2. The plaintiff has violated the terms of the sale agreement and he has not complied with the duties shown in the agreement.
3. Since the period for performance was fixed as four months, the suit has become time barred.
4. Instead of taking the appropriate civil suit, the plaintiff has initiated criminal proceedings for threatening the defendants and to comply with his lawful demands and hence, he has no cause of action.

The Additional District Court, Virudhunagar rejected the plaint filed by the plaintiff for non disclosure of cause of action.

Against this order the plaintiff filed an appeal before Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.  The High Court observed the points 2 and 4 of the defendants seeking as the grounds for rejection of the plaint are matter of trial and by no stretch of imagination the same can be considered as grounds for rejection of plaints.  Just because some of the properties are different, the same cannot be considered as a ground of want of cause of action.  In the present case, the Judge nowhere observed that the impugned plaint does not disclose any cause of action, but on the other hand, he has observed that the cause of action was not proper.  Even assuming that the finding given by the trial court is correct that cannot be considered as a reason or ground for rejecting the plaint.  The Trial Court has not assigned any various reason to arrive at the said finding.

The High Court has no hesitation to hold that the Judge, without considering the plaint pleadings and the scope of Order 7 Rules 11 of the Code in proper perspective, has rejected the plaint mechanically.  The High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the trial court to proceed with the trial. 

Adjudication of issues

In BALAJI, LATHA, KANDAPPA, DINAKARAN, JAYANTHI AND JANSIRANI @ DEVI VERSUS ARUMUGAM, ANANDAN @ ANANDA KUMAR, GANESAN, GOPI, GIRIDARAN, GEJARAJU, VASUDEVAN, GAYATHRI, RADHIKA AND RADHIKA - 2023 (4) TMI 476 - MADRAS HIGH COURT, the appellants/plaintiff filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction and for recovery of possession.  The respondents/defendants filed written statement and also filed an application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11.  The trial court allowed the application and rejected the plaint on the ground of limitation.  Therefore the appellant filed the present appeal before High Court of Madras. 

The High Court observed that the limitation in the present case is to be adjudicated with reference to the facts as well as the events.  It is a mixed question of facts and law and therefore adjudication becomes imminent.  In such a situation it is preferable to try the suit by framing the issues rather than rejecting the plaint.  In the present case the appellants have earlier instituted suit for partition and the present appeal suit is in continuation of the earlier suit.  Therefore the mixed question of fact and law are to be decided for appreciation of the issues raised between the parties.

The High Court held that no plaint is to be rejected on merits.  The Trial Court cannot adjudicate the merits in an interlocutory application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code.  Even if the cause of action is improperly set out, the plaint as a whole must be read and merely on the basis of the facts in one paragraph or in the cause of action paragraph plaint need not be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code.  The intention of the court is not to deprive a person to get relief on the adjudication of the facts on merits.   

Therefore the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order.

Territorial jurisdiction

In FUTURE SECTOR LAND DEVELOPERS LLP & ANR. VERSUS BAGMANE DEVELOPERS P. LTD. & ORS. ETC. - 2023 (3) TMI 166 - SUPREME COURT, the appellants filed a civil suit on the file of the 9^th Joint Civil Judge, Pune against 141 defendants seeking various reliefs.  After service of summons, defendants No. 66, 67, 139 and 117 filed separate applications seeking the return of the plaint for presentation to the proper court on the ground that the suit schedule properties are situate within the jurisdiction of the appropriate courts in Bengaluru.  Defendant No. 117 filed on more application seeking rejection of plaint that the Court in Pune does not have territorial jurisdiction to grant reliefs in respect of immovable properties situate within the jurisdiction of Courts in Bengaluru and also that the suit is barred by provisions of Companies Act, 2013.  The trial court dismissed the applications for rejection of plaint.

The defendant Nos. 138 and 117 challenged the said orders of the Trial Court before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in two civil revision applications.  The High Court allowed both the applications.  It is against these orders that the plaintiffs have come up with the appeals. 

The Supreme Court held that the suit is concerned for immovable properties which are not just described in the plaint schedule by way of empty formality but clearly stated to be subject matter of the suit.  The High Court was right in holding that the suit falls under category of one, for determination of any right to or interest in immovable property covered by Section 16(d) of the Code.  Though relief sought to direct Registrar to cancel deeds of revocation of power of attorney, details of office of Registrar were not provided and he was also not made a party.  The Trial Court had granted to the appellants in terms of Order II Rule 2(3) of the Code to file substantial suit for specific performance and possession in later point of time.  That did not mean that rights of defendants to seek return of plaint could be curtailed.  The Supreme Court held that the order passed by the High Court in Civil Revision application did not call for any interference.  However the Supreme Court set aside the order of application filed under Order VII and Rule 11 of the Code.