Improper Joinder Of Causes Of Action Not Grounds To Reject Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11: Bombay High Court

Justice Gauri Godse was hearing an interim application filed by Victoria Enterprises Limited seeking rejection of the plaint in a commercial suit instituted by DNM Trustee Service Private Ltd. The defendant invoked Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the CPC, contending that the suit was barred by limitation and did not disclose a valid cause of action. The dispute arose from a registered agreement dated 2 February 2008 under which the defendant had agreed to hand over possession of certain units to the purchasers by 31 March 2008.

The Court examined the pleadings and documents annexed to the plaint, including the partition deed and the trust deed. It observed that the pleadings sufficiently explained the plaintiff's right to institute the suit under Order XXXI Rule 1 of the CPC. In view of these pleadings and supporting documents, the Court held that the objection regarding the absence of a cause of action could not be accepted at the stage of considering an application under Order VII Rule 11.

On the issue of joinder of causes of action, the Court held that the defendant's reliance on Order II Rule 4 of the CPC was misplaced. The Court clarified that an objection relating to improper joinder of causes of action does not render the plaint liable to rejection. Instead, such an objection raises a triable issue that must be examined during the trial after evidence is led.

“An objection to the joinder of the cause of action would raise a triable issue, and such objection is no ground to hold that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action warranting rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC. The plaintiff would be entitled to lead evidence in support of the cause of action and entitlement to seek the relief as prayed in the plaint,” the Court observed.

The Court also addressed the defendant's argument that the suit was barred by limitation. The Court noted that non-compliance with statutory and contractual obligations relating to amenities, parking spaces and other facilities could constitute a continuing breach. The Court further observed that the plaint contained detailed pleadings regarding repeated reminders issued to the defendant and its continuing failure to fulfil obligations under the agreement.

The Court also noted that the suit had already progressed substantially and was at the stage of consideration of the plaintiff's application for summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the CPC. Filing an application under Order VII Rule 11 at such a stage appeared to be an attempt to delay the proceedings, which runs contrary to the objective of speedy disposal under the Commercial Courts Act.

Holding that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and that the issues raised by the defendant required adjudication during trial, the Court rejected the application seeking rejection of the plaint. The Court also imposed costs of ₹50,000 on the defendant for attempting to delay the proceedings.

Case Title: Victoria Enterprises Limited v. DNM Trustee Service Private Ltd. [NTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7964 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL SUIT NO. 39 OF 2015]

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 112