Principles of Rejection of Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC

Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam.

Part I

Principles of Rejection of Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC

The principles of rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is authoritatively laid down in Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali, (2020) 7 SCC 366.

It can be summarised as under:

• 1. Rejection of plaint must be on any of the grounds contained in Order VII Rule 11. They are:
  • no cause of action is disclosed, or
  • the suit is barred by limitation under Rule 11 (d).
• 2. Conditions in Order VII Rule 11 are to be strictly adhered to.
• 3. To find disclosure of a cause of action, averments in the plaint itself scrutinized.
• 4. Plaint must be read in conjunction with the documents filed along with the plaint
• 5. A case for rejecting the plaint at the threshold be made out.
• 6. The pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement and application for rejection of the plaint on the merits, would be irrelevant.
• 7. It is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage, and to read it in isolation. It is the substance, and not merely the form, which has to be looked into.
• 8.  If the allegations in the plaint prima facie show a cause of action, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations are true in fact.
• 9. If on a meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and without any merit, and does not disclose a right to sue, the court would exercise the power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
• 10. The power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC may be exercised by the Court at any stage of the suit.
• 11.  The provision of Order VII Rule 11 is mandatory in nature. It states that the plaint “shall” be rejected.  
• 12. If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing.
• 13. Every suit instituted after the prescribed period, shall be dismissed even though limitation may not have been set up as a defence.
• 14. If a suit is based on multiple causes of action, the period of limitation will begin to run from the date when the right to sue first accrues.

Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra), (2020) 7 SCC 366, is followed in:

• The Correspondence, RBANMS Educational Institution v. B. Gunashekar, AIR 2025 SC 2065; 20255 SCR 94
• Geetha v. Nanjundaswamy, AIR 2023 SC 5516; 2024 14 SCC 390,
• Frost International Limited v. M/s Milan Developers and Builders (P) Limited, 2022-8 SCC 633.

Part II

Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra), (2020) 7 SCC 366

It is held in this decision as under:

• “23.2. The remedy under Order VII Rule 11 is an independent and special remedy, wherein the Court is empowered to summarily dismiss a suit at the threshold, without proceeding to record evidence, and conducting a trial, on the basis of the evidence adduced, if it is satisfied that the action should be terminated on any of the grounds contained in this provision.
• 23.3. The underlying object of Order VII Rule 11 (a) is that if in a suit,
  • no cause of action is disclosed, or
  • the suit is barred by limitation under Rule 11 (d),

• the Court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in the suit. In such a case, it would be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation, so that further judicial time is not wasted.
• 23.4. In Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, 1986 Supp SCC 315 _{(Followed in Manvendrasinhji Ranjitsinhji Jadeja v. Vijaykunverba, 1998 SCC OnLine Guj 281 : (1998) 2 GLH 823)} this Court held that the whole purpose of conferment of powers under this provision is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless, and bound to prove abortive, should not be permitted to waste judicial time of the court, in the following words : (SCC p.324, para 12)
• 23.5. The power conferred on the court to terminate a civil action is, however, a drastic one, and the conditions enumerated in Order VII Rule 11 are required to be strictly adhered to.
• 23.6. Under Order VII Rule 11, a duty is cast on the Court to determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action by scrutinizing the averments in the plaint _{(Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. V. M.V. Sea Success I, (2004) 9 SCC 512)}, read in conjunction with the documents relied upon, or whether the suit is barred by any law.

• 23.7. Order VII Rule 14(1) provides for production of documents, on which the plaintiff places reliance in his suit, which reads as under:
  • “14. Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies.-
  • Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint.
  • Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is.
  • A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.
  • Nothing in this rule shall apply to document produced for the cross examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses, or, handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.”(emphasis supplied)
• 23.8. Having regard to Order VII Rule 14 CPC, the documents filed along with the plaint, are required to be taken into consideration for deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 (a). When a document referred to in the plaint, forms the basis of the plaint, it should be treated as a part of the plaint.
• 23.9. In exercise of power under this provision, the Court would determine if the assertions made in the plaint are contrary to statutory law, or judicial dicta, for deciding whether a case for rejecting the plaint at the threshold is made out.
• 23.10. At this stage, the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement and application for rejection of the plaint on the merits, would be irrelevant, and cannot be adverted to, or taken into consideration (Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Charity Commr., (2004) 3 SCC 137).
• 23.11. The test for exercising the power under Order VII Rule 11 is that if the averments made in the plaint are taken in entirety, in conjunction with the documents relied upon, would the same result in a decree being passed. This test was laid down in Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I which reads as : (SCC p.562, para 139)
  • “139. Whether a plaint discloses a cause of action or not is essentially a question of fact. But whether it does or does not must be found out from reading the plaint itself. For the said purpose, the averments made in the plaint in their entirety must be held to be correct. The test is as to whether if the averments made in the plaint are taken to be correct in their entirety, a decree would be passed.”
• 23.12. In Hardesh Ores (P.) Ltd. v. Hede & Co., (2007) 5 SCC 614, the Court further held that it is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage, and to read it in isolation. It is the substance, and not merely the form, which has to be looked into. The plaint has to be construed as it stands, without addition or subtraction of words. If the allegations in the plaint prima facie show a cause of action, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations are true in fact. D. Ramachandran v. R.V. Janakiraman, (1999) 3 SCC 267).
• 23.13. If on a meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and without any merit, and does not disclose a right to sue, the court would be justified in exercising the power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
• 23.14. The power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC may be exercised by the Court at any stage of the suit, either before registering the plaint, or after issuing summons to the defendant, or before conclusion of the trial, as held by this Court in the judgment of Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 1 SCC 557. The plea that once issues are framed, the matter must necessarily go to trial was repelled by this Court in Azhar Hussain (supra).
• 23.15. The provision of Order VII Rule 11 is mandatory in nature. It states that the plaint “shall” be rejected if any of the grounds specified in clause (a) to (e) are made out. If the Court finds that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, or that the suit is barred by any law, the Court has no option, but to reject the plaint.
• 24. “Cause of action” means every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to judgment. It consists of a bundle of material facts, which are necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to entitle him to the reliefs claimed in the suit.
• 24.1. In Swamy Atmanand v. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam, (2005) 10 SCC 51, this Court held:
  • “24. A cause of action, thus, means every fact, which if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove an order to support his right to a judgment of the court. In other words, it is a bundle of facts, which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. It must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such an act, no cause of action can possibly accrue. It is not limited to the actual infringement of the right sued on but includes all the material facts on which it is founded”(emphasis supplied)
• 24.2. In T. Arivanandam v. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467, this Court held that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC what is required to be decided is whether the plaint discloses a real cause of action, or something purely illusory, in the following words: (SCC p. 470, para 5)
  • “5. 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, he should exercise his power under Order VII, Rule 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.”(emphasis supplied)
• 24.3. Subsequently, in I.T.C. Ltd. v. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, (1998) 2 SCC 170, this Court held that law cannot permit clever drafting which creates illusions of a cause of action. What is required is that a clear right must be made out in the plaint.
• 24.4. If, however, by clever drafting of the plaint, it has created the illusion of a cause of action, this Court in Madanuri Sri Ramachandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal, (2017) 13 SCC 174, held that it should be nipped in the bud, so that bogus litigation will end at the earliest stage. The Court must be vigilant against any camouflage or suppression, and determine whether the litigation is utterly vexatious, and an abuse of the process of the court.
• 25. The Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes a time-limit for the institution of all suits, appeals, and applications. Section 2(j) defines the expression “period of limitation” to mean the period of limitation prescribed in the Schedule for suits, appeals or applications. Section 3 lays down that every suit instituted after the prescribed period, shall be dismissed even though limitation may not have been set up as a defence. If a suit is not covered by any specific article, then it would fall within the residuary article.

Description of suit	Period of limitation	Time from which period begins to run
58. To obtain any other declaration	Three years	When the right to sue first accrues
59. To cancel or set aside an instrument or decree or for the rescission of a contract	Three years	When the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument or decree cancelled or set aside or the contract rescinded first become known to him.

• The period of limitation prescribed under Articles 58 and 59 of the 1963 Act is three years, which commences from the date when the right to sue first accrues.
• 27. In Khatri Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2011) 9 SCC 126, this Court held that the use of the word ‘first’ between the words ‘sue’ and ‘accrued’, would mean that if a suit is based on multiple causes of action, the period of limitation will begin to run from the date when the right to sue first accrues. That is, if there are successive violations of the right, it would not give rise to a fresh cause of action, and the suit will be liable to be dismissed, if it is beyond the period of limitation counted from the date when the right to sue first accrued.
• 28. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh, (1991) 4 SCC 1 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 1082, held that the Court must examine the plaint and determine when the right to sue first accrued to the plaintiff, and whether on the assumed facts, the plaint is within time. The words “right to sue” means the right to seek relief by means of legal proceedings. The right to sue accrues only when the cause of action arises. The suit must be instituted when the right asserted in the suit is infringed, or when there is a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe such right by the defendant against whom the suit is instituted. Order VII Rule 11(d) provides that where a suit appears from the averments in the plaint to be barred by any law, the plaint shall be rejected.”