CPC | Plaints Rejected At Pre-Registration Stage Must Be Recorded Under Order IV Rule 2 : Supreme Court

While reiterating that a rejection of suit is permissible even at a pre-registration stage, the Supreme Court on Thursday (November 5) ordered that whenever a civil suit is rejected prior to the registration of the suit, the fact that such plaint stands rejected shall be duly recorded in a register maintained under Order IV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court also said that the High Courts may take appropriate steps if such provisions are not being made in the concerned Civil Manual or the applicable rules.

“whenever the trial Court rejects a plaint in exercise of power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code prior to registration of the plaint, the fact that such plaint stands rejected shall be duly recorded in a register maintained for such purpose under Order IV Rule 2 of the Code. In case such provision has not been made in the concerned Civil Manual or the applicable Rules, the High Courts may in exercise of its power conferred by Section 122 of the Code take appropriate steps in that regard.”, observed a bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S Chandurkar while hearing an appeal filed by the Plaintiff, who was aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the trial court and High Court, summarily rejecting his civil suit at the pre-registration stage, overlooking the cause of action disclosed in the suit.

The Court emphasized that “the record of an unregistered or unnumbered plaint would be necessary in case an order rejecting a plaint is questioned in appeal and the record of the trial Court is summoned. In other words, a record of plaints that are rejected prior to their registration also ought to be maintained. This would facilitate the availability of some record of proceedings initiated by a plaintiff at an earlier point of time.”

The Court directed the circulation of the Copy of this judgment to the Registrar General of the High Courts and the Director of the State Judicial Academies for necessary circulation and follow-up steps.

The aforesaid direction came while deciding a case where a loan transaction between the parties led to a culmination of dispute, where owing to a plaintiff's debt towards the defendant's husband, a sale deed was registered in the defendant's name by the plaintiff. When the plaintiff became capable of clearing his debt towards the defendant's husband, the defendant avoided redemption of the mortgage deed styled as a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, prompting him to file a suit seeking a declaration of title and a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from disturbing the peaceful possession of the property.

The trial court summarily rejected the suit citing lack of provision of re-sale in plaintiff's favour, without providing reason for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11, following which an appeal was filed before the High Court, which also resulted in the same fate, leading to filing of an appeal before the Supreme Court by the plaintiff.

Setting aside the concurrent findings of the courts below, the judgment authored by Justice Chandurkar observed that upon reading the suit, it discloses the cause of action, which was overlooked both by the trial court and the High Court, as both the courts failed to read the plaint as a whole.

“the trial Court failed to notice the various prayers made by the plaintiff in the plaint. It merely proceeded on the basis that the suit as filed was simplicitor for redemption of the mortgage deed styled as a sale deed. Secondly, it was not permissible for the trial Court to ignore material averments made in the plaint nor could it refuse to read the plaint as a whole. In the wake of specific pleadings made in the plaint disclosing a cause of action for filing the suit and seeking various reliefs, the plaint was not liable to be rejected in a summary manner by the trial Court.”, the Court said.

According to the court, the unlikelihood of the plaintiff to finally succeed in the suit and that the suit would be dismissed after trial would not be a consideration at the stage of hearing a suit rejection application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

"Without considering the plaint as a whole and without its meaningful reading, the Courts have rejected the plaint. It would be a different matter that according to the trial Court, the plaintiff was not likely to finally succeed in the suit and that the suit would be dismissed after trial. That assumption cannot be made the basis for rejection of a plaint, especially when some cause of action is disclosed therein. Likelihood of a suit being dismissed after trial does not furnish a ground for the Court to reject the plaint prior to the trial. If a plaint discloses a cause of action, which it does in the present case, and the suit does not appear to be barred by any law in view of statements made in the plaint, it has to go for trial.", the Court observed.

As a result, the appeal was allowed, directing the restoration of the suit to its original file to be decided in accordance with law.

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s): Mr. Shoeb Alam, Sr. Adv. Mr. Tushar Giri, AOR Mr. D. Ravichander, Adv. Mr. Sivagnanam Karthikeyan, Adv. Mr. Aravind Raj, Adv. Ms. Charita Singh, Adv. Mr. Lakshay Singh, Adv.

For Respondent(s): Ms. G. Indira, AOR Mr. Kv Jagdishvaran, Adv. Mr. P Gandepan, Adv. Ms. Anjali Singh, Adv. Mr. Joseph Manavalan, Adv. Mr. G Senthamizh, Adv. Mr. A Abinesh Gandhi, Adv.