Monday, 9 April 2012

Rejection of Plaint – Order 7 Rule 11

Rejection of Plaint – O7 R11

Plaint founded on pleas unsupported by any material on record, the Plaint does not disclose any cause of action, shall be rejected under O7R11, (2008) 2 Punj LR (D) 41, 48 (Del), (2008) 10 SCC 97, 103; (2005) 10 SCC 760, 778.


Object of O7R11 – Keep out of Courts irresponsible law Suits. Order 10 is a tool in the hands of Court to effectuate object behind O7R11. The Plaint can be rejected even without intervention of the Defendant. The duty is cast upon the Court to perform its obligation. (2004) 3 SCC 137, 147.


A plaint can be rejected under O7R11 for institutional defects. A 2009 (NOC) 915 (Ker) (DB).


The Court will not wait for disposal of Application made under O7R11 till the framing of issues, A 2009 Jhar 86, 87.


If the Plaint is manifestly meritless or vexatious, the Court can reject Plaint under O7R11 even before the Defendant has filed his WS. 2009 AIHC 1455, 1457 (Gau).


Plaint can be rejected at any stage. Application by party not necessary. (2003) 1 SCC 557; A 1999 All 109, 125; A 2008 (NOC) 1248 (Mad); (2008) 1 CTC 527; A 2004 Gau 107; A 2009 (NOC) 915 (Del) (DB).


The trial Court can exercise powers under O7R11 at any stage of the Suit. (2004) 3 SCC 137; (2003) 1 SCC 557.



Where the Suit is not maintainable, the HC can under invoke jurisdiction under Article 227 and reject the Plaint. (2008) 2 MLJ 646, 652 (Mad).


Clever drafting creating illusion of cause of action, (1998) 2 SCC 70, 77, 81.


Defect in POA is curable. Rejection not warranted. A 2006 AP 337, 343.


An order rejecting Plaint is appelable in terms of section 2(2) of CPC and not Revisable. (2002) AIHC 283, 285 (AP); (2003) Andh LD 105 (AP).


O7R11 and O14 R2 – Court has power to decide its own jurisdiction and questions regarding the maintainability of the Suit. (2003) 8 SCC 134, 143.


Order under O7R11 is a decree. (1996) AIHC 998, 999 (Cal) (DB); 2000 All LJ 2357 (All).


Power to reject Plaint can be exercised even after framing of issues and when matter is posted for evidence, (1998) 2 SCC 70, 76, 77.


For deciding application under O7R11 (a) to (d), the averments in the Plaint are germane. Pleas taken in WS are wholly irrelevant at that stage.
(2004) 3 SCC 137;
(2003) 1 SCC 557;
(2008) 3 Cal LT 99, 105;
(2008) 68 AIC 516, 518 (Kant);
(2008) 5 Andh LT 520, 530;
(2008) 68 AIC 677 (AP);
(2009) 4 CTC 773, 778 (Mad) (DB);
A 2009 Del 129;
A 2009 Raj 142, 143;
(2007) 1 Punj LR 445 (P & H);
(2007) 2 Punj LR 50 Del;
(2009) 83 AIC 656 (Mad) (DB);
(2009) 3 ALJ (DOC) 116;
(2008) 72 All LR 626 (All) (DB);
(2009) 6 Mah LJ 157 (Bom) (DB);
A 2008 (NOC) 1225 Cal;
(2008) 3 Cal LT 99, 105.


Orders passed under O.7 R.11 are a decree – AIR 2009 Pat 71.


The decision given by a court on merits amounts to a decree and as such appeal against such decision can be filed. However, no appeal can be field against a decision not given on merits but on some technical point and against such decision only revision can be filed – Rameshwar versus Neeraj Kumar – (1996) 3 Civil LJ 861 (Pat)


O.7 R.11 – Rejection of Plaint – the case must fall within the four corners of the provisions of O.7 R.11 – truthfulness of narration of facts in Plaint / WS are not to be judged at the stage of rejection of Plaint – AIR 2011 (NOC) 260 P & H – Para 24.


Summary dismissal – (2011) 6 SCC 456


O.7 R.11(a) – rejection of Plaint – cause of action – non existence of – Application rejected – AIR 2011 Guj 27 – Paras 15, 17.


O.7 R.11 – rejection for want of cause of action – courts shall look into Plaint and not on W.S. – Application for Rejection rejected – AIR 2011 Mad 136 – Para 10.


O.7 R.11(d) – Suit barred by law – AIR 2011 Mad 136 – Paras 15, 16, 23.


O.7 R.11 – Colgate Palmolive versus Rajendra Vinayak – 2012 (2) All MR 225 – Para 12


Mayar HK Ltd & Ors vs Owners & Parties vessel MV Fortune Express & Ors 2006 3 SCC 100
PK Palanisamy Vs N Arumugham & Anr 2009 4 LW 75
Prem Lala Nahata & Anr vs Chandi Prasad Sikaria AIR 2007 SC 1247
Saleem Bhai & Ors v St of Maharashtra & Ors 2003 1 SCC 557
Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and Ors Vs Asst Charity Com and Ors AIR 2004 SC 1801
Sudhir G Angur & Ors v M Sanjeev & Ors AIR 2006 SC 351
T Arivandandam vs TV Satyapal & Anr AIR 1977 SC 2421


O.7 R.11 – 2012 (2) All MR 225 – Para 12

O.7 R.11 – 2012 (2) All MR 806 – Para 10


O.7 R.11 – AIR 2012 Raj 39(B) – Paras 12, 13


O.7 R.11 – AIR 2012 Raj 39(B) – Paras 12, 13
O.7 R.11 – 2012 (2) All MR 225 – Para 12
O.7 R.11 – 2012 (2) All MR 806 – Para 10


O.7 R.11 – 2013 (1) All MR 716
An assertion in Plaint contrary to Statutory law, plaint does not disclose cause of action – would be rejected – 1994 GCD 3272, 3279 Guj (DB)

4 comments:

  1. Can a suit reject without making party to company when purchaser of goods is company

    ReplyDelete
  2. Pls check O.1 R.9
    9. Misjoinder and nonjoinder

    No suit shall be defeated by reason of the misjoinder or nonjoinder of parties, and the Court may in every suit deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it:

    1[Provided that nothing in this rule shall apply to nonjoinder of a necessary party.]

    The Suit can be rejected under this Rule.

    ReplyDelete
  3. When the plaint apperrantly on face barred by law no cause of action ,court fee not paid or less fee paid or court observed taht no decree can be passed after admitting the plain moreover if the plaint does not disclose any cause of action then court is duty to bound to reject the plaint with out further loss of time on the Petition of defendants at any stageit will be tantamount to a decree but not on technical default in plaint

    ReplyDelete