The Himachal Pradesh High Court has reiterated that while deciding an application for rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, courts must confine their examination to the averments in the plaint and the documents accompanying it, without considering the defence raised by the defendants.

Dismissing a petition challenging the rejection of such an application in a dispute overthe election of a cooperative society's managing committee, the Court held that the trial court had rightly refused to reject the plaint at this stage.

Justice Virender Singh remarked that: “At the time of deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only the averments as made in the plaint, as well as, the accompanying documents are to be taken into consideration. The defence raised by the defendants is not liable to be taken into consideration”

The case arose from a dispute over the August 25, 2023 election of the managing committee of the Katohar Khurd Cooperative Agriculture Service Society in Una, Himachal Pradesh. The plaintiffs alleged that their nomination forms had been illegally rejected and that the election process was conducted in violation of the prescribed rules. They sought to declare the election null and void and requested the appointment of an administrator until fresh elections were held.

The defendants sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, arguing that the suit was barred under Sections 72 and 76 of the Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1968. After the trial court dismissed their application, the defendants approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The High Court observed that an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC must be decided solely on the basis of the plaint and accompanying documents, without considering the defendants' defence.

It held that the plaintiffs' contention regarding the delay in adjudication of the election dispute under Section 72 of the Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1968, had been rightly considered by the trial court.

The Court further noted that a plaint cannot be partially rejected when multiple reliefs are sought and the suit cannot be rejected in its entirety.

Finding no grounds to interfere with the trial court's order under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court dismissed the petition, clarifying that its observations would not affect the merits of the underlying suit.

Date of Decision: 30.09.2026