The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not a default or routine step in civil adjudication, but a “digression” which courts should resort to only when the plaint, by its own deficiencies, invites such rejection.

Terming the exercise of rejection of a plaint in terms of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 a matter of very attentive application of mind rather than routine following of motion on the part of a civil court Justice Rahul Bharti remarked,

“Rejection of a plaint, however, is a sort of digression of that nature of adjudication of a civil suit and as such, such a digression is not to be served to a civil suit unless and until a plaint is self-inviting the same for its rejection. This is what is essence of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is”.

The Court made these observations while dismissing an appeal filed by one Sunil Singh, whose civil suit seeking multiple declarations and consequential reliefs relating to a property at Talab Tillo, Jammu, had been rejected at the threshold by the trial court.

Background:

The appellant had approached the trial court with an elaborate civil suit seeking to declare several documents including gift deeds dated 1993, 1994, and 2006, as well as powers of attorney executed by family members as null and void. The trial court rejected the plaint holding that the plaintiff had not pleaded any legal relationship with the property to show how he had a right to sue. Aggrieved, he approached the High Court in appeal.

Courts Observations:

Justice Rahul Bharti began by examining the entire plaint to determine whether the plaintiff had disclosed any legally recognized basis to claim the suit property.

The Court noted that the plaintiff's pleadings, despite their volume, failed to show how he was the owner or claimant of the property. Instead, the plaint tied the property to his father and to his deceased uncle, yet nowhere explained how the plaintiff himself derived any legal right.

The Court observed that the appellant seemed to have lost in his own jugglery of averments, purportedly relating the property to his father and uncle, but not to himself, while still seeking sweeping declaratory reliefs over it.

Turning to the application of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, Justice Bharti extensively referenced Supreme Court precedents. The Court noted that in Raj Narain Sarin v. Laxmi Devi (2002) 10 SCC 501, the Supreme Court cautioned that courts must be hesitant in invoking Order VII Rule 11 and must examine plaint averments as they are.

The bench emphasized that rejection of plaint depends solely on facts stated in the plaint and missing foundational facts can render a plaint liable to rejection. But if a cause of action is disclosed, courts cannot reject the plaint using outside material, the bench underscored and remarked,

“If the facts put up in a factual statement in the plaint are presenting or introducing a cause of action, then a civil court has no discretion reserved to it to reject such a plaint by borrowing outside reference, howsoever persuasive it may be, from the defendant's end to discredit a plaint and the factual averments made in written statement”

Justice Bharti then referred to Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. Daya Sapra (2009) 13 SCC 729, reiterating that filing a civil suit is a matter of right, and Section 9 CPC enables anyone to approach a civil court unless expressly barred. He stressed that rejection of a plaint requires “very attentive application of mind”, as suits are intended to culminate in adjudication on issues not in premature termination.

Justice Bharti also referred to Kuldeep Singh Pathania v. Bikram Singh Jaryal (2017) 5 SCC 345, holding that while determining applicability of Order VII Rule 11, courts must consider plaintiff's pleadings alone, to the total exclusion of the defendant's case.

“If the facts put up in a factual statement in the plaint are presenting or introducing a cause of action, then a civil court has no discretion reserved to it to reject such a plaint by borrowing outside reference, howsoever persuasive it may be, from the defendant's end to discredit a plaint and the factual averments made in written statement”, the court clarified.

Applying these principles, the Court stated that since the plaintiff had failed to show any legal right or connection to the suit property, and therefore the plaint was rightly rejected. Thus it dismissed the appeal along with connected matters.

Case Title: Sunil Singh v. Krishan Lal Gupta & Ors

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment