O 7 Rule 11 CPC | Admissibility Of Document Cannot Be Decided While Considering Rejection Of Plaint : Supreme Court

A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S Chandurkar ruled so while allowing an appeal filed by a group of landowners/lessors, setting aside a Patna High Court order that had remanded their eviction suit for fresh consideration on the ground that an unregistered supplementary lease deed on which they relied was inadmissible in evidence.

The bench framed the question as, “non-admissibility of a document on which the plaintiff relies for seeking relief in his suit is sought to be made a ground for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Whether such a ground could be urged before commencement of the trial is the issue that arises for consideration in this civil appeal.”

The plaintiffs (appellants) had executed a registered lease deed in favour of the respondents (defendants) for a plot of land, for a 33-year term at a monthly rent of Rs 92,550 with 7% annual escalation. It is alleged that after the defendants sought a bank loan for constructing a school building on the land and were required to furnish an equitable mortgage as security, the parties executed a supplementary lease deed modifying certain terms of the original lease, including revising the rent based on the constructed area. The plaintiffs alleged that since this deed merely modified an already registered deed, it did not itself require registration.

When the defendants failed to pay rent as per the revised terms, the plaintiffs issued a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA) terminating the tenancy. Subsequently, a suit for eviction and arrears of rent was filed. Replying to the notice, the defendants altogether denied executing the supplementary lease deed. On being served with the suit, the defendants applied for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the CPC, contending that the supplementary lease deed was barred under Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 for being unregistered.

The trial court rejected defendants' contention, holding that the supplementary deed was an integral part of the registered lease deed. However, the Patna High Court in revision relied on M/s KB Saha & Sons Pvt Ltd v M/s Development Consultant Ltd and Sunil Kumar Roy v M/s Bhowra Kankanee Collieries Ltd, and held that since the supplementary deed was inadmissible in evidence for being unregistered, it could not be treated as part of the registered lease. It, thus, set aside the trial court's order.

Aggrieved by the High Court's finding, the plaintiffs appealed before the Supreme Court.

Before the Supreme Court, Senior Advocates Niraj Kishan Kaul and Shadan Farasat argued for the appellants, contending that the High Court had erred in examining the admissibility of the supplementary lease deed at the Order VII Rule 11 stage, when only the plaint averments and the documents filed along with it were to be considered, and that admissibility was a matter for trial.

Per contra, Senior Advocate Gagan Gupta argued for the defendants, relied on M/s Paul Rubber Industries Private Limited v Amit Chand Mitra and Satish Chand Makhan v Govardhan Das Byas, to contend that since the entire suit was founded on an inadmissible, unregistered document, there was no cause of action to sustain it.

The Supreme Court relied on PV Guru Raj Reddy v P Neeradha Reddy to reiterate that rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is a drastic power that non-suits a plaintiff without trial, and that only the plaint averments are to be examined to determine whether a cause of action is disclosed or the suit is barred by law, with the defendant's stand in the written statement or application being wholly immaterial at that stage.

Applying this, the Court held that, “the aspect of admissibility or otherwise of a document filed along with the plaint cannot be made the basis for seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and/or (d) of the Code. The question of admissibility or otherwise of a document is a matter for consideration at the trial and it is only at that stage that such issue could be raised and gone into. The question as regards admissibility of a document would be relevant while adjudicating the suit on merits and not while considering a prayer for rejection of the plaint.”

Examining Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, the Court noted that while non-registration of a document required to be registered ordinarily prevents it from affecting the immovable property comprised therein or being received as evidence of the transaction, the proviso to Section 49 permits such a document to be received as evidence of any collateral transaction not itself required to be effected by a registered instrument. The Court held that whether a party can avail this proviso is a matter to be decided at trial and observed that, “without granting an opportunity to a party relying on such document to lead evidence to either attempt to prove such unregistered document or to rely upon the proviso to Section 49 of the Act of 1908 so as to give evidence of any collateral transaction that is not required to be effected by a registered document, a party cannot be prevented at the inception itself from even relying upon such document. In any event, the contention that a document cannot be relied upon as it is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration is a matter that can hardly be considered under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code while seeking rejection of the plaint. At that stage, such adjudication would be premature.”

Further, the bench noted that the plaintiffs had specifically pleaded in the plaint that the supplementary lease deed did not require registration as it was merely a modification of an already registered deed. On this, the Court held that “permitting the defendants to raise an issue as to non-registration of the supplementary lease deed while seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code would amount to ignoring the plaintiffs' averments, which state that the said document did not require registration. Material that is beyond the plaint or documents filed along with it would, therefore, be required to be taken into consideration for adjudicating the defendants' prayer for rejection of the plaint. This is wholly impermissible while exercising jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code.”

Moreover, the bench found fault with the approach of both the trial court and the High Court, observing that while the trial court had gone into the merits of whether the supplementary deed formed a part of the registered lease, the High Court had gone to the extent of recording a finding on inadmissibility even before evidence was led.

“In our view, both the Courts misdirected themselves while adjudicating the application filed by the defendants under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. The issue of admissibility or otherwise of a document would be the subject matter of trial. Recording a finding that a particular document was inadmissible in evidence even before parties lead evidence would be contrary to law,” the bench held.

Holding that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and was not barred by any law, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, and directed the trial court to proceed to decide the suit on its merits.

“It is clarified that observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of deciding the present appeal. We have not gone into the question of admissibility or otherwise of the supplementary lease deed dated 15.02.2013. The trial Court shall decide the suit on its own merits, uninfluenced by any observations made hereinabove,” the bench clarified.

Case: Sheo Kumar Singh & Others v M/s Sharda Educational Society & Others

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 956

Appearance:

For Appellants: Mr Niraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv.; Mr Krishnan Venugopal, Sr. Adv.; Mr Mayank Pandey, AOR; Mr Harshit Anand, Adv.; Mr Ashish Kumar Pandey, Adv.; Mr Mayank Gupta, Adv.; Ms Ira Mahajan, Adv.; Mr. Kumar Harshvardhan, Adv.

For Defendants: Mr Gagan Gupta, Sr. Adv.; M/s Saa Chambers, AOR; Mr Akshay Amritanshu, Adv.; Ms Swati Ghildiyal, Adv.; Mr Sarthak Srivastava, Adv.; Mr Mayur Goyal, Adv.; Mr Utkarsh Rai, Adv.