Civil Suit Alleging Coercion, Undue Influence Cannot Be Rejected At Threshold Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (February 10) observed that a civil suit cannot be rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC merely because it contains a ground of coercion, undue influence or misrepresentation. A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran set aside the concurrent findings of the Madras High Court and the Trial Court, which rejected the Appellant's civil suit at the threshold terming it to be an abuse of process of law merely because the suit alleged inequitable partition of the immovable property on the grounds of coercion, undue influence, and misrepresentation. “The grounds of coercion, undue influence and more importantly misrepresentation, resulting in an inequitable partition, cannot be peremptorily rejected while considering an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC.”, the Court observed. The dispute centres on a 308-page partition deed, which all parties admit signing. The Respondent-Vaikundarajan Group seeks to enforce it as a binding settlement, while the Appellant-Jegatheesan Group claims it was executed under coercion, undue influence and misrepresentation, and was only a “tentative draft.” A Conciliation Award dated January 2, 2019, purportedly issued under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, further complicates the matter. Signed by a half-brother as conciliator, it certifies the KBPP as a formally concluded settlement. The Respondent argues that together the documents constitute an enforceable conciliation award under Section 36. The Appellant alleges that no real conciliation occurred and that the award was fabricated to legitimise an inequitable arrangement. The trial court rejected the Appellant's suit under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, and the High Court upheld the decision, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court. Setting aside the impugned ruling, a judgment authored by Justice Chandran noted that the trial court and High Court committed a fundamental error in dismissing the suit at the pleading stage. The Court noted that since the Appellants have raised triable issues in the suit regarding the correctness of the partition deed as well as the settlement award, therefore can't be rejected at the threshold. “We hence find the order of the Trial Court as confirmed by the High Court, resulting in the rejection of the plaint to be egregiously erroneous in law. We are of the opinion that there is a prima facie cause of action disclosed etc. in the suit and it cannot be termed vexatious or an abuse of the process of law. The cause of action as seen from the above discussion is a real one and not illusory or fictional. The factual averments, the legal grounds and the relief sought are not meaningless nor can it be said at this stage that the suit is bound to fail.”, the court observed. Cause Title: J. Muthurajan & Anr. Versus S. Vaikundarajan & Ors.Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 135Click here to download judgmentAppearance: For Petitioner(s) :Mr. V. Prakash, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nishant, AOR Mr. S. Karupasamy, Adv. Mr. S. Gokul, Adv. Mr. M. Gothaman, Adv. Ms. Oviya Barathi Ur, Adv. Mr. Anurag Tandon, Adv. Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. S. Santanam Swaminadhan, Adv. Mr. N. V. Prakash, Adv. Mrs. Aarthi Rajan, AOR Mr. Rohan Rajasekaran, Adv. Ms. Abhilasha Shrawat, Adv. Mr. Tushar Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Shourya Dasgupta, Adv.For Respondent(s) :Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Adv. Mr. S Elambharathi, Adv. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR Mr. S. Elambharathi, Adv. Mr. Vishwaditya Sharma, Adv. Mr. Subornadeep Bhattacharjee, Adv. Mr. Muthu Thangathurai, Adv. Ms. Harsha Tripathi, Adv. Ms. Kanishka Singh, Adv. Ms. Suganya Ts, Adv. Mr. Parikshit Pitale, Adv. Mr. S. Santanam Swaminadhan, Adv. Mr. N. V. Prakash, Adv. Mrs. Aarthi Rajan, AOR Mr. Rohan Rajasekaran, Adv. Ms. Abhilasha Shrawat, Adv. Mr. G. Anandaselvam, Adv. Mr. Habib Muzaffar, Adv. Mr. Abiram R, Adv. Mr. Jay Kishor Singh, AOR Mr. G. Balaji, AOR Mr. Neeleshwar Pavani, Adv. Ms. Arzu Paul, Adv. Mr. V. Puneedhan, Adv. Ms. D. Naveena, Adv. Ms. Vaishnavi, Adv. Mr. Shiv Kumar, Adv. Mr. Udayaditya Banerjee, AOR Ms. Shubhangi Pandey, Adv. Mrs. Parul Shukla, Adv. M/S. Mukesh Kumar Singh And Co., AOR Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Narendra Kumar Goyal, Adv. Mr. Subodh, Adv. Mr. Kadam Hans, Adv. Mr. Jeetendra Kumar, Adv. Ms. Komal Singh, Adv. Ms. Kajal Rani, Adv. Mr. L.sivaraman, Adv. Mr. Harsh Chaturvedi, Adv. Ms. Maulshree, Adv.

Civil Suit Alleging Coercion, Undue Influence Cannot Be Rejected At Threshold Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Civil Suit Alleging Coercion, Undue Influence Cannot Be Rejected At Threshold Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers