SPOT LIGHT ON REJECTION OF PLAINT

(I) INTRODUCTION:

Rejecting Plaint is an appealable decree and appeal lies under Section 96 of Code of Procedure. So Under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, a Plaint can be rejected only in cases enumerated in Rule 11 and not otherwise. For example, non-filing of the suit document is not one of the grounds on which, a Plaint can be rejected.

Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C has dealt with various aspects relating to rejection of Plaint and this article deals with clause (a) and (d) only as most of the litigation is revolving around these clauses only. 

Clause (a) thereof sets out that a Plaint is liable to be rejected where it does not disclose any cause of action, inasmuch as, upon a careful and meaningful reading of the Plaint as a whole in a non-formal manner and if the same is found to be manifestly vexatious and meritless, in the sense that it failed to disclose a clear right to sue such a Plaint is liable to be rejected under Clause (a) of Rule 11 Order VII C.P.C. The rejection in such cases is for want of the necessary cause of action accruing the right to sue or it could be for the reason that it was not disclosed clearly in the Plaint. Therefore, if a Plaint is rejected once before for want of non-disclosure or for not accruing of cause of action, the provision contained in Rule 13 of Order VII will certainly come to the rescue of such a Plaintiff to present a fresh Plaint clearly disclosing the cause of action and the right to sue, which may have either occurred prior to the filing of the earlier suit or even thereafter. Therefore, cases where a Plaint is rejected in view of Clause (a) of Rule 11 Order VII C.P.C does not present any serious difficulty, for purposes of applicability of Rule 13 of the said Order. (Nalla Raji Reddy Vs. Venkatanantha Chary in Civil Revision Petition No. 1874 of 2015 Decided on : 07-10-2015).

(II) LIMITATION IS A MIXED QUESTION OF FACT AND LAW: 

Limitation is a mixed question of fact and Law and a Plaint cannot be rejected on such mixed question of fact and Law. (2006 (5) SCC 658 (Balasarala Constructions (P) Ltd., Vs. Hanuman Seva Trust and others),

In cases where a reading of the Plaint shows that there is no arguable case for the Plaintiff, the Plaint can be rejected. But in cases where there is a doubt as to whether the Plaint can be rejected or not, or whether the Plaintiff has got arguable case or not, in such circumstances, the benefit must go to the Plaintiff. This view has been taken by the learned Judge relying upon the Judgment of the Bombay High Court reported in AIR 1999 Bombay 161. In that context it has been held as follows:- "19. It is settled Law as held by various Courts that where on the face of the Plaint, a suit appears to be barred by any Law, the Court shall dismiss the suit. But where it does not so appear, but requires further consideration or, in other words, if there be a doubt or if the Court is not sure and certain that the suit is barred by some Law, the Court cannot reject the Plaint under Clause (d) of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. (Kasthuri & others Vs. Baskaran & another, reported in 2004 (2) L.W. 429).

(III) PLAINT CAN BE REJECTED ONLY IN EXCEPTIONAL CASES: 

It is settled Law that the Plaint can be rejected as disclosing no cause of action if the Court finds that it is plain and obvious that the case put forward is unarguable. The phrase "does not disclose a cause of action" has to be very narrowly construed. Rejection of the Plaint at the threshold entails very serious consequences for the Plaintiff. This Power has, therefore, to be sued in exceptional circumstances. The Court has to be absolutely sure that on a meaningful reading of the Plaint it does not make out any case. The Plaint can only be rejected where it does not disclose a cause of action or where the suit appears from the statements made in the Plaint to be barred by any provision of the Law. While exercising the Power of rejecting the Plaint, the Court has to act with utmost caution. This Power ought to be used only when the Court is absolutely sure that the Plaintiff does not have an arguable case at all. The exercise of this Power though arising in Civil Procedure, can be said to belong to the realm of Criminal jurisprudence an any benefit of the doubt must go to the Plaintiff, whose Plaint is to be branded as an abuse of the process of the Court. This jurisdiction ought to be very sparingly exercised and only in very exceptional cases. The exercise of this Power would not be justified merely because the story told in the pleadings was highly improbable or which may be difficult to believe. 

(IV) ONLY THE AVERMENTS OF THE PLAINT ARE GERMANE: 

The Supreme Court has held that for the purpose of deciding the Application filed under Rule 11 of Order 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the averments in the Plaint are germane and the plea taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage. The Application can be filed at any stage of the suit. Therefore it is clear that a suit can be maintained and cannot be rejected so long as averments disclose cause of action or raises questions fit to be decided by Court, unless, ex facie it is barred by any Law.

So also averments in the Plaint as a whole have to be seen to find out whether clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII was applicable. (2005 LawSuit(SC) 1152 Popat and Kotecha Property Vs. State Bank of India Staff Association).

So the question whether the Plaint discloses a cause of action or not should be determined on the basis of averments made in the Plaint alone and in Order to ascertain the same, the Plaint has to be read as a whole in a meaningful manner and the Court cannot consider the merits of the matter at that stage and the onus is on the defendant to show that the Plaint does not disclose the cause of action and the Plaint is liable for rejection only if it does not disclose a cause of action, but not in a case where there is no cause of action and it is sufficient if the Plaint discloses some cause of action and the weakness, if any, in the Plaintiffs’ case as perceived by the defendant or the remoteness of the chances of success for the Plaintiffs are irrelevant.’ (M.A.E.Kumar Krishna Varma v. Ramoji Rao and others (2008(6) ALT 688).

So what would be relevant for invoking clause (d) of Order VII, Rule 1 of the Code is the averments made in the Plaint. For that purpose, there cannot be any addition or subtraction.

(V) HOW TO DECIDE WHETHER THERE IS CAUSE OF ACTION OR NOT....?: 

For example: “with respect to Clause (a), I have perused the Plaint. Para-15 of the Plaint is concerned with cause of action. The Plaint has narrated several events and dates on which cause of action purportedly arose. Therefore, ex facie, this is not a case where the Plaint does not disclose any cause of action. Even assuming that the contents of the Plaint relating to cause of action may not be correct, the Court will not embark upon a roving enquiry on this aspect while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11. All that the Court needs to examine at that stage is whether the Plaint contains pleadings relating to cause of action. Once the Court is satisfied that the Plaint does not contain such pleadings, it will not go further.” (K.N. Reddy Vs. Defense Personnel Co-op., House Building Society Ltd. in Civil Revision Petition No. 1866 of 2014 Decided on: 15-07-2014).

(VI) HOW TO DECIDE WHETHER THE SUIT IS BARRED BY ANY LAW..?: 

For example: with regard to second ground, namely, whether the suit is barred by any Law. There appears to be a misconception that the time barred suits fall within the ambit of Clause (d) of Rule 11. In my opinion, the said Clause will be attracted only if the Court is satisfied from the statement in the Plaint that filing of suit itself is barred by any Law i.e., certain statutes prohibit filing of civil suits. To illustrate, Section 170 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 bars the jurisdiction of the civil Courts to adjudicate on the legality of any action taken or decision given by the Returning Officer or any other person appointed under the said Act; Section 6E of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 bars the jurisdiction of any Court, Tribunal or other authority to make Order on seizures made under Section 3 of the said Act. Where, by express language of any statutory provision, jurisdiction of civil Courts is barred, suits filed in violation of such statutory provisions fall under Clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII CPC. The question whether a suit is barred by limitation or not is a mixed question of Law and fact, and therefore such a question cannot be adjudicated at the threshold before trial is held. Hence, the ground that the suit is barred by limitation is not comprehended by the provisions of Order VII Rule 11. (K.N. Reddy Vs. Defense Personnel Co-op., House Building Society Ltd. in Civil Revision Petition No. 1866 of 2014 Decided on: 15-07-2014).

Moreover, Under Order VII, Rule 11 (d) of the Code has limited application. It must be shown that the suit is barred under any Law. Such a conclusion must be drawn from the averments made in the Plaint. 

(VII) THE FACT THAT THE RELIEF CAN'T BE ALLOWED IS NOT A GROUND TO REJECT THE PLAINT: 

With the rejection of Plaint, the very avenue for redressal gets closed, almost once for all. Therefore, strong circumstances, as provided for under Rule 11 of Order VII CPC., must be found existing, before the Plaint is rejected. In the instant case, there is not even a finding that there is no cause of action for the appellant to file the suit. No provision of Law is cited that bars the suit. The mere fact that there is every likelihood of the relief claimed by the appellant being not allowed, cannot be a ground for rejection of the Plaint. (2009 LawSuit(AP) 766 Sudheer Kumar Sanghi Vs. D.Tulasi Das). 

(VIII) CONCLUSION: 

Certain grounds may be good grounds for the defendants to get the suit dismissed, but they can't be invoked at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC. For example: Plea of non-joinder, misjoinder of parties and cause of action, resjudicata because they do not fit into any of the clauses contained in Rule 11 Order VII CPC.

Super added to this, Rejection of Plaint is a very drastic step; resulting in the very closure of doors of a Court to the plaintiff in the suit concerned. Refusal of adjudication on merits by a Court warrants a very strong circumstance covered by Rule 11. the Parliament is very cautious in stipulating the grounds on which a plaint cannot be rejected. (G.Ananda Murthy Vs. G.Anasuyamma and others (2010 Supreme (AP) 502).