Brief Overview:
A plaint cannot be rejected in its entirety merely because one of the reliefs sought is legally untenable, provided that other reliefs are maintainable and arise from independent causes of action.
Technical Details:
In a civil suit, the plaintiff asserted two distinct causes of action in the same plaint and sought distinct reliefs based on:
1) an unregistered agreement to sell, which was alleged to operate in the nature of a mortgage; and
2) the execution of registered sale deeds after the revocation of a power of attorney.
Despite the presence of these independent claims, the High Court rejected the entire plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (“CPC”), on the sole basis that the first cause of action was legally unsustainable. The High Court failed to consider the second cause of action on its own merits.
In appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s decision, setting out important legal principles governing the application of Order VII Rule 11 CPC:
1) Rejection of plaint must be based solely on the contents of the plaint
Supreme Court reiterated that, at the stage of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the inquiry must be confined strictly to the pleadings in the plaint. The Court must not consider the defense or any external materials, nor can it assess the veracity of the allegations. If the plaint, on its face, discloses a cause of action, Court cannot reject it under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
2) Existence of multiple causes of action and reliefs
Where a plaint comprises multiple causes of action or seeks multiple reliefs, rejection of the entire plaint is unwarranted merely because one cause of action or one relief may be barred by law. So long as other causes of action are valid and independently sustainable, the suit must proceed in respect of those claims.
3) Factual controversies are not to be decided at the threshold
Supreme Court emphasized that Order VII Rule 11 CPC is not a tool for summary adjudication of disputed facts. If any triable issue arises from the pleadings, the suit cannot be rejected. Determining whether a claim is ultimately true or tenable must be left to trial or a later stage of proceedings.
4) Severability not permissible where causes of action are distinct but interrelated
Supreme Court held that where a plaint contains separate and distinct causes of action, supported by their own set of facts, Court cannot engage in selective rejection of some parts of the plaint. Unless the entire plaint is devoid of a cause of action or falls within one of the enumerated grounds under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the plaint cannot be rejected in part.
5) Opportunity to rectify court fee deficiencies
Rejection of a plaint for insufficient court fees is not automatic. The CPC requires that the plaintiff be given a reasonable opportunity to make good the deficiency. Only upon the plaintiff’s failure to do so can the Court invoke Order VII Rule 11 of CPC for non-payment of proper court fee.
JC takeaway:
Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC:
1) a plaint cannot be entirely rejected merely because one of several distinct causes of action may be barred;
2) where independent claims are pleaded with separate factual foundations, selective severance of reliefs is impermissible; and
3) Courts must limit themselves to the plaint’s averments and not evaluate disputed facts or defenses.
Procedural defects like deficient court fees must be given an opportunity to be cured before rejection.
For further details, please see:
Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. v. Mahaveer Lunia & Ors., Supreme Court
For any queries/clarifications, please feel free to ping us and we will be happy to chat:
