Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Documents Filed With Plaint Can Be Considered To Determine Whether It Discloses 'Cause Of Action': Delhi High Court

Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC empowers the Court to reject a plaint on specific grounds including lack of cause of action, etc.

Justice Ravinder Dudeja however observed, “it may be true that Order 7 Rule 11 even though authorizes the Court to reject a plaint on failure on the part of the plaintiff to disclose a cause of action but the same would not mean that the averments made therein or a document upon which reliance has been placed although discloses a cause of action, the plaint would still be rejected on the ground that such averments are not sufficient to prove the facts stated therein for the purpose of obtaining relief claimed in the suit.”

The Court was dealing with a petition filed against district court order dismissing the Order 7 Rule 11 application filed by the Petitioner (defendant) for rejection of plaint on alleged ground of non-disclosure of valid cause of action.

Respondent (plaintiff) had filed a suit for recovery of money claiming it had provided logistic services to the Petitioner but the latter failed to make payment for the same.

In his application for rejection of plaint, the Petitioner had claimed that the Respondent's suit lacked material particulars of the transaction and hence did not disclose a valid cause of action.

Before the High Court, the Respondent submitted that it had briefly summarized the facts in its plaint and filed all the documents like ledger account, sub-agency collection report, bills, etc. along with the plaint and such documents contain the complete details.

The Petitioner however argued that for the purpose of deciding as to whether a plaint discloses a cause of action or not, only the averments in the plaint are to be considered and no other evidence, documents or written statements should be taken into consideration for the said purpose.

Thus, the question before the High Court was whether the documents filed with the plaint can be considered for determining whether the plaint discloses cause of action or not.

At the outset, the High Court relied on Liverpool & London S.P. & I Association Ltd. Vs. M.V. Sea Success & Another (2004) where the Supreme Court held that if the averments made in the plaint or documents relied upon disclose a cause of action, plaint should not be rejected merely on the ground that the averments are not sufficient to prove the facts stated therein.

Similarly, a Coordinate Bench of the High Court in Inspiration Clothes & U Vs. Colby International Limited (2000) held that where the plaint is based on documents, the Court is entitled to consider the said documents and ascertain if cause of action is disclosed in the plaint.

In view of the aforesaid dictum, the High Court said, “the plaint is not to be looked in isolation distinct from the documents relied upon with the plaint. Since the respondent has placed on record all the relevant documents which would furnish the requisite details regards the goods booked by the petitioner and sent by the respondent to the foreign destinations, taxes and dates of invoices, it therefore, cannot be said that plaint does not disclose the cause of action.”

It added, “The phrase “does not disclose the cause of action” has to be very narrowly construed. The rejection of plaint at the threshold entails very serious consequences. This power therefore has to be exercised only in exceptional circumstances and ought to be used only when the Court is absolutely sure that plaintiff does not have any arguable case at all.”

As such, the Court dismissed the petition.

Appearance: Mr. R. K. Trakru, Adv for Petitioner; Mr. Kamal Gupta & Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advs for Respondent

Case title: Gurmeet Singh Sachdeva v. Skyways Air Services Pvt. Ltd

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 532

Case no.: CM(M) 147/2024

Click here to read order