O.7 R.11 CPC | Plaint Can Only Be Rejected Based On Its Own Averments, Defendant's Stand Immaterial: Andhra Pradesh High Court
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC only if, on a plain reading of its averments, it discloses no cause of action or is barred by law. Dismissing a challenge to the refusal to reject a plaint in a partition suit, the Court held that the plaintiff's earlier plea of oral partition in previous litigation did not, by itself, justify...
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC only if, on a plain reading of its averments, it discloses no cause of action or is barred by law.
Dismissing a challenge to the refusal to reject a plaint in a partition suit, the Court held that the plaintiff's earlier plea of oral partition in previous litigation did not, by itself, justify rejection of the plaint, and that the defendants' defence cannot be considered while deciding such an application.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Subba Reddy Satti dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the trial court's refusal to reject the plaint in a partition suit.
The Court held:
"It is a well-settled proposition of law that rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is a drastic power available to the Court at the threshold, and therefore, the Court, while considering the said application, shall go by the averments in the plaint alone. The claim of the plaintiff concerning knowledge of the essential facts giving rise to the cause of action needs to be accepted as correct. The stand of the defendant in the written statement is wholly immaterial.
If the plaint ex facie does not disclose a cause of action, or a plain reading of the plaint reveals that the relief is barred by limitation, then only the plaint can be rejected. When the foundation of facts as pleaded attracts the bar of limitation, no trial is warranted. Even a clear drafting of the plaint, in certain circumstances, warrants rejection"
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking partition of ancestral properties, stating that although an oral partition had been claimed in earlier litigation, neither side could prove it. The earlier suits were dismissed, with the courts observing that the parties were free to seek partition by metes and bounds. After the defendants allegedly refused the plaintiff's demand for partition, the present suit was filed.
After the plaintiff's evidence was closed, the defendants sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC. They argued that the plaintiff's own pleadings about the earlier oral partition showed that the suit disclosed no cause of action. The trial court dismissed the application, leading to the present revision petition.
Before the High Court, the petitioners relied on Supreme Court decisions to contend that the plaint should be rejected at the threshold for lack of cause of action.
Referring to a catena of Supreme Court decisions, the Court found that the plaint candidly disclosed the earlier litigation, the failure to establish the alleged oral partition, and the defendants' subsequent refusal to partition the property. It held:
"In the case at hand, as observed supra, on a reading of the entire plaint, the plaintiff did not hide any fact concerning earlier litigation. In fact, the plaintiff, in so many words, pleaded about an earlier oral partition and failed to establish the same, as per the verdict in the earlier litigation, by either of the parties. It is not a clever drafting of a plaint or creating an illusory cause of action to litigate again. In fact, it was stated that after the suits, the first round of litigation, the plaintiff asked for a partition; however, the defendants did not cooperate. In fact, it was pleaded in the plaint that since all the suits were dismissed and the Court disbelieved the earlier oral partition, the suit was filed seeking partition.
One should not be oblivious of the difference between a 'fact' and a 'fact in issue'. A question of 'fact' is different from the 'fact in issue'. A fact in issue, which is the principal dispute, needs to be culled out to decide the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC within the framework as enunciated in the clauses. Every Court adjudicates the fact in issue while taking into consideration the totality of the facts."
Therefore, the plaint disclosed a cause of action and could not be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Finding no illegality or perversity in the trial court's order and reiterating that Article 227 jurisdiction is supervisory and not appellate, the High Court dismissed the civil revision petition and upheld the trial court's refusal to reject the plaint.
Case Title: Mathi Venkata Lakshmi & Anr. v. Pushadapu Sambasiva Rao & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Revision Petition No. 1954 of 2025
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sai Gangadhar Chamarty
Counsel for the Respondents: Ghantasala Udaya Bhaskar and T. Raghu Prasad