Rejection of Plaint is a Procedural Termination, and Dismissal of Suit on Preliminary Issue is a Summary Decision on Merits

Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam.

Introduction

The following provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, can be invoked by a defendant, to seek rejection or dismissal of a suit, at the threshold, without a trial:

  1. Order VII Rule 11, CPC – Rejection of plaint (on the specific grounds enumerated).
  2. Order XIV Rule 2(2), CPC – Decision on preliminary issues, where the issue relates to –
    (a) the jurisdiction of the court, or (b) a statutory bar to the suit, and(c) such issues that can be decided as a pure question of law.
  3. Section 151, CPC – Inherent powers of the court  (exercised in exceptional cases where the proceedings amount to an abuse of the process of the court or no specific provision in the CPC).

The following are the general provisions of law that may be invoked by a defendant for summary termination of a suit, without a full trial:

  • Section 9 CPC – Civil court jurisdiction expressly or impliedly barred
  • Section 11 CPC – Bar of Res judicata
  • Limitation Act, 1963 – Barred by limitation, apparent on the plaint
  • Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Bar under Sections 14, 41, etc.
  • Partnership Act, 1932 – Section 69 – Suit by unregistered firm, to enforce contractual rights
  • Public Premises Act/ Rent Control Acts/ Land Reforms Acts – Statutory exclusion of civil jurisdiction.

Part I

Order VII rule 11 of the CPC

Order 7 rule 11 of the CPC is the specific provision for the rejection of the plaint. It reads as under:

  • “11. Rejection of plaint. The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:
  • (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
  • (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
  • (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
  • (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;
  • (e) where it is not filed in duplicate;
  • (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9″.

Rejection of Plaint under O. VII r. 11: Following are the Basic Principles

  • Rejection is a procedural termination (and not a dismissal on the merits).
  • A plaint is rejected only in the specific situations enumerated in Order VII rule 11 CPC.
  • Only plaint averments are looked into for determining rejection of plaint.
  • Defence pleadings or disputed facts cannot be looked into.
  • Rejection can be ordered at any stage. (Usually it is a threshold determination.)
  • A fresh plaint can be presented after curing the defects (if not barred by limitation or under any provision of law).

Grounds for Rejection

Following are the grounds for Rejection of Plain in Order VII rule 11 CPC:

  • No Cause of Action Disclosed [Order VII Rule 11(a)]
  • Relief Undervalued [Order VII Rule 11(b)]
  • Insufficient Court Fee [Order VII Rule 11(c)]
  • Suit Barred by Law [Order VII Rule 11(d)] such as:
    • Limitation
    • Res judicata (when evident on the plaint)
    • Statutory bar (e.g., Section 69 of the Partnership Act for unregistered firms)
  • Duplicate Plaint Not Filed [Order VII Rule 11(e)]
  • Non-compliance with Rule 9 [Order VII Rule 11(f)]

Order VI rule 16

Order VI rule 16 provides for striking out pleadings at any stage. (It may not lead to dismissal of the entire plaint.) It reads as follows:

  • “16. Striking out pleadings.- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings order to be struck out or amended any matter in any pleading-
  • a) which may be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, or
  • b) which may tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the suit, or
  • c) which is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court.”

Order 14 rule 2

Order 14 rule 2 CPC provides for the hearing of any preliminary issue, including the maintainability of the suit. It reads as follows:

  • “2. Court to pronounce judgment on all issues.
  • (1) Notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on preliminary issue, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), pronounce judgment on all issues.
  • (2) Where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first if that issue relates to-
    • (a) the jurisdiction of the Court, or
    • (b) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in-force.
  • and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the other issues until after that issue has been determined, and may deal with the suit in accordance with the decision on that issue.”

Order 10 rule 1 CPC

Order 10 rule 1 CPC reads as under:

  • “Examination of parties by the court: 1. Ascertainment whether allegations in pleadings are admitted or denied.—At the first hearing of the suit the Court shall ascertain from each party or his pleader whether he admits or denies such allegations of fact as are made in the plaint or written statement (if any) of the opposite party, and as are not expressly or by necessary implication admitted or denied by the party against whom they are made. The Court shall record such admissions and denials.”

Part II

Inherent Powers Cannot be used for ‘Rejection’ of Plaints. But it can be used for “Dismissal” of Suits in Rare Cases.

  • A PLAINT cannot be rejected invoking Section 151 CPC (Inherent Powers of courts).
  • But, the court can dismiss a SUIT, at the threshold, in exceptional cases, invoking inherent powers.
  • Inherent powers are not invoked for the Rejection of the plaintiff, for it is a Statutory-Affair, and specific provisions are laid down in Order VII Rule 11. (It cannot be supplemented, expanded, or substituted, invoking Section 151. In such cases, the inherent powers stand excluded.)

Inherent Powers Not Used if in Conflict with Express Provisions

In Padam Sen v. State of U.P., AIR 1961 SC 218, our Apex Court found: “the Additional Munsiff had DO inherent powers to pass the order appointing a Commissioner to seize the plaintiff’s account books”.

It had been observed in this decision, as under:

  • “It is submitted for the State, that the Code is not exhaustive and the Court, in the exercise of its inherent powers, can adopt any procedure not prohibited by the Code expressly or by necessary implication if the Court considers it necessary, for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. Section 151 of the Code reads:
    • ” Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court “.
  • The inherent powers of the Court are in addition to the powers specifically conferred on the Court by the Code. They are complementary to those powers and therefore it must be held that the Court is free to exercise them for the puposes mentioned in s. 151 of the Code when the exercise of those powers is not in any way in conflict with what has been expressly provided in the Code or against the intentions of the Legislature. It is also well recognized that the inherent power is not to be exercised in a manner which will be contrary to or different from the procedure expressly provided in the Code.”

In Nain Singh v. Koonwarjee, (1970) 1 SCC 732, the Apex Court cautioned as under:

  • “Under the inherent power of courts recognised by Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, a court has no power to do that which is prohibited by the Code. Inherent jurisdiction of the court must be exercised subject to the rule that if the Code does contain specific provisions which would meet the necessities of the case, such provisions should be followed and inherent jurisdiction should not be invoked. In other words the court cannot make use of the special provisions of Section 151 of the Code where a party had his remedy provided elsewhere in the Code and he neglected to avail himself of the same. Further the power under Section 151 of the Code cannot be exercised as an appellate power.”

S. 151 is Not a Provision Conferring Power of Substantive Relief

It is held in Vinod Seth v. Devinder Bajaj, (2010) 8 SCC 1, as under:

  • “Section 151 is not a provision of law conferring power to grant any kind of substantive relief. It is a procedural provision saving the inherent power of the court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of the court. It cannot be invoked with reference to a matter which is covered by a specific provision in the Code. It cannot be exercised in conflict with the general scheme and intent of the Code. It cannot be used either to create or recognise rights, or to create liabilities and obligations not contemplated by any law.”

Inherent Powers Can be invoked (to Dismiss the Suit) in the Following Situations

T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467, is an authority to argue that inherent powers Can be invoked (to Dismiss a Suit) in the Following Situations:

  • Abuse of process of court
  • Fraud on court
  • Sham, vexatious, or illusory litigation
  • Re-litigation amounting to judicial harassment

Se. 151, Inherent Power to Dismiss a Suit – if ‘Abuse of Process of the Court’

The Courts have inherent powers to dismiss a suit that is an ‘abuse of their process’. It can also be invoked for rejection or setting aside a suit if an absolutely groundless suit is filed.

Re-agitation may or may not be barred as res judicata. If the Court finds that there is an abuse of the process of court, and is satisfied that there is no chance of succeeding, the Court may exercise its discretion with circumspection, though only in rare situations.

In K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi, AIR 1998 SC 1297: 1998 (3) SCC 573, it is observed as under:

  •  “32. Under Order 6 Rule 16, the Court may, at any stage of the proceeding, order to be struck out, inter alia, any matter in any pleading which is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. Mulla in his treatise on the Code of Civil Procedure. (15th Edition, Volume II, page 1179 note 7) has stated that power under clause (c) of Order 6 Rule 16 of the Code is confined to cases where the abuse of the process of the Court is manifest from the pleadings; and that this power is unlike the power under Section 151 whereunder Courts have inherent power to strike out pleadings or to stay or dismiss proceedings which are an abuse of their process.
  • In the present case the High Court has held the suit to be an abuse of the process of Court on the basis of what is stated in the plaint.”
  • (Quoted in: Messer Holdings Ltd. v. Shyam Madanmohan Ruia, AIR 2016 SC 1948; 2016 11 SCC 484;
  • Reddy Enterprises, Vijayawada v. Appellate Authority & Additional Commissioner (ST) Vijayawada, 2024-5 ALD 452;
  • Raahul Foundations Private Ltd. v. S. Chandrababu, 2019-2 LW 148; 2019-3 MLJ 321)

Where No express provision, Inherent Powers can be Invoked

In Arun Shankar Shukla v. State of U.P., AIR 1999 SC 2554, while dealing with the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, the Supreme Court held that where there is no express provision, inherent power can be invoked. The Court said as under:

  • “2. …It is true that under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent the abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. But the expressions “abuse of the process of law” or “to secure the ends of justice” do not confer unlimited jurisdiction on the High Court and the alleged abuse of the process of law or the ends of justice could only be secured in accordance with law including procedural law and not otherwise. Further, inherent powers are in the nature of extraordinary powers to be used sparingly for achieving the object mentioned in Section 482 of the Code in cases where there is no express provision empowering the High Court to achieve the said object. It is well-nigh settled that inherent power is not to be invoked in respect of any matter covered by specific provisions of the Code or if its exercise would infringe any specific provision of the Code…..”

Part III

Manifestly Vexatious Suit –  ‘Nipped in the bud’, Searchingly u/Or. 10, CPC

Justice V.R.Krishna Iyer:  T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467, held that on a meaningful — not formal — reading of the plaint, if it is found that a manifestly vexatious suit is filed, it must be nipped in the bud searchingly under Order 10, CPC. The Court held as under:

  • “We have not the slightest hesitation in condemning the petitioner for the gross abuse of the process of the court repeatedly and unrepentantly resorted to. From the statement of the facts found in the judgment of the High Court, it is perfectly plain that the suit now, pending before the First Munsif’s Court, Bangalore, is a flagrant misuse of the mercies of the law in receiving plaints. The learned Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful-not formal-reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, be should exercise his power under Or. VII r. 11 C.P.C. taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order X C.P.C. An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits. The trial court should insist imperatively on examining the party at the first bearing so that bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage. The Penal Code (Ch. XI) is also resourceful enough to meet such men, and must be triggered against them. In this case, the learned Judge to his cost realised what George Bernard Shaw remarked on the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi: “It is dangerous to be too good.”

Fraud or Abuse of judicial process — May Invite Dismissal of Suit

It is trite law – Fraud vitiates all judicial acts (See: A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P. (2007) 4 SCC 221. [Quoted in: Yashoda (Alias Sodhan) VS Sukhwinder Singh, AIR 2022 SC 4623; 2022-12 SCR 31; Smriti Madan Kansagra v. Perry Kansagra, AIR 2021 SC 5423].  Courts take suppression of material facts seriously, and if there is deliberate misuse of judicial process, courts may even dismiss the suit outright invoking inherent powers. (See: K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi, (1998) 3SCC 573).

Fraud on Court and fraud on a party

In Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd. (1996) 5 SCC 550, referring to Lazarus Estates and Smith v. East Elloe Rural District Council, 1956 AC 336 : (1956) 1 All ER 855 : (1956) 2 WLR 888, our Apex Court held as under:

  • “22. The judiciary in India also possesses inherent power, specially under Section 151 C.P.C., to recall its judgment or order if it is obtained by fraud on Court. In the case of fraud on a party to the suit or proceedings, the Court may direct the affected party to file a separate suit for setting aside the Decree obtained by fraud. Inherent powers are powers which are resident in all courts, especially of superior jurisdiction. These powers spring not from legislation but from the nature and the Constitution of the Tribunals or Courts themselves so as to enable them to maintain their dignity, secure obedience to its process and rules, protect its officers from indignity and wrong and to punish unseemly behaviour. This power is necessary for the orderly administration of the Court’s business”.

In Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India, AIR 2024 SC 289; 2024-5 SCC 481, it is held as under:

  • It is trite that fraud vitiates everything. It is a settled proposition of law that fraud avoids all judicial acts. In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath (Dead) through LRs, (1994) 1 SCC 1 (“S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu”), it has been observed that “fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal.” Further, “no judgment of a court, no order of a minister would be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. fraud unravels everything” vide Lazarus Estates Ltd. vs. Beasley, (1956) 1 all ER 341 (“Lazarus Estates Ltd.”).
  • It is well-settled that writ jurisdiction is discretionary in nature and that the discretion must be exercised equitably for promotion of good faith vide State of Maharashtra vs. Prabhu, (1994) 2 SCC 481 (“Prabhu”). This Court has further emphasized that fraud and collusion vitiate the most solemn precedent in any civilized jurisprudence; and that fraud and justice never dwell together (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant). This maxim has never lost its lustre over the centuries. Thus, any litigant who is guilty of inhibition before the Court should not bear the fruit and benefit of the court’s orders. This Court has also held that fraud is an act of deliberation with a desire to secure something which is otherwise not due. fraud is practiced with an intention to secure undue advantage. Thus, an act of fraud on courts must be viewed seriously.

How to Subscribe ‘IndianLawLive’? Click here – “How to Subscribe free “

Read in this Cluster (Click on the Topic)

Civil Suits: Procedure & Principles

Book No, 1 – Civil Procedure Code

Principles and Procedure

PROPERTY LAW

Title, ownership and Possession

Recovery of Possession: 

Adverse Possession

Land Laws/ Transfer of Property Act

Land Reform Laws

Power of attorney

Evidence Act – General

Sec. 65B

Admission, Relevancy and Proof

Law on Documents

Documents – Proof and Presumption

Interpretation

Contract Act

Law on Damages

Easement

Stamp Act & Registration

Divorce/Marriage

Negotiable Instruments Act

Criminal

Arbitration

Will

Book No. 2: A Handbook on Constitutional Issues

Religious issues

Book No. 3: Common Law of CLUBS and SOCIETIES in India

Book No. 4: Common Law of TRUSTS in India

Unknown's avatar

Published by sajikoduvath

Leave a Comment