Scribd
Upload
508 views3 pages

Order 7: Guidelines for Plaint Rejection

order 7 cpc

Uploaded by

Keshni goel
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
508 views3 pages

Order 7: Guidelines for Plaint Rejection

order 7 cpc

Uploaded by

Keshni goel
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Order 7: Plaint

Order 7 particularly deals with the term plaint. The ingredients of a plaint are
laid down under Rule 1 of the Order. Plaint is an official legal complaint
against someone that is used in a court of law. The main object of Order 7
Rule 11 is to reject plaints that are improper in nature at the very beginning,
thus saving judicial time and resources.

Difference between rejection of plaint (rule 11) and


return of plaint (rule10)

Under Order 7 Rule 10, if the court finds that it does not have the jurisdiction
to try the matter, at any stage of the suit, the suit shall be returned to the
court in which it should have been instituted. Whereas, under Order 7 Rule
11, there are several grounds upon which a plaint can be rejected by the
court.

Grounds of rejection of the plaint

 Cause of action -Rule 11(a)


A plaint can be rejected by the court if it does not mention a cause of action
which is to be taken by the plaintiff against the respondent. The cause of
action is necessary because it discloses the facts that led the plaintiff to take
such action. When the plaint is rejected, the court needs to just look at the
plaint and nothing else.

Illustration – Suresh rents a house from Ramesh at a rent of INR 120,000


per year. Rent for the whole of the years 2015, 2016 and 2017 is due and is
yet to be paid. Ramesh sues Suresh in 2019 for claiming the amount that was
due. The suit was in respect of the rent due in 2015. Thus, after this, Ramesh
cannot sue Suresh afterwards for the rent due for the remaining years.

 The relief claimed in the plaint is undervalued-Rule 11(b)

If the amount of compensation that is being demanded by the plaintiff is


lesser than required, the plaint can be rejected. Such a claim needs to be
corrected within the time which is prescribed by the Court. Such a rejection
amounts to the dismissal of the suit.
 Relief -Rule 11(c)

A plaint is rejected by the court if it has been written on a paper which has
not been duly stamped and authorised. If the person is not able to make up
for the deficiency, he can apply to continue the suit. An Order under this Rule
for rejecting a plaint must only be given after the plaintiff has been given
reasonable time to amend the situation.

 If the suit is barred by any statute-Rule 11(d)

If a suit is barred by the Law of Limitation, the plaint of such a suit can be
amended at the hearing. It is the duty of the Court to see whether there is
non-disclosure of the cause of action or whether the plaint is barred under
any law.

 If the plaint is not filed in duplicate-Rule 11(e)

A duplicate copy of the plaint along with the original one should be filed for
instituting a suit. The plaint is rejected if the plaintiff fails to do so.

Locus Standi
For filing a suit, the plaintiff needs to have a locus standi. He/She needs to
show that some legal right of the person has been violated. Such violation
should also result in some injury caused to the person. If no legal right has
been violated, the person will not have a locus standi for filing a suit. Under
Order VII Rule 11, the locus standi of the suit depends upon whether any
grounds were violated which resulted in rejection of the plaint.

Saleem Bhai & ors. vs State of Maharashtra & ors.

The appellant filed an application under order VII Rule 11. It is stated there that the
plaint is liable to be rejected under clause (a) and clause (d) of Rule 11 of order VII
C.P.C. The respondent also filed an application under order VIII rule 10 of C.P.C. to
get the orders in the suits immediately as the appellant did not file his written
statement. The common question arose after the appeals made before the Supreme
Court that whether an application under order VII rule 11 C.P.C should be decided on
the allegations in the plaint. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that trial court can exercise
the power under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. at any stage of the suit-before registering
the plaint.

R. K. Roja Vs U. S. Rayudu & Anr.

The Supreme Court held that once an application seeking rejection of Plaint is filed
by the Respondent, it is essential to decide upon the application before proceeding
further and that the Respondent cannot file a Written Statement until such
application is disposed off. Therefore, the Defendant is entitled to file the application
for rejection before filing his Written Statement. In case, the application is rejected,
the Defendant is entitled to file his Written Statement thereafter.

Prem Lala Nahata Vs Chandi Prasad


A mother and daughter who gave a loan of Rs 5 Lakhs each to the respondent
who they met through their husband and father, respectively. The respondent
didn’t pay back and now the appellants want their entire money back along with
interest. The appellants had registered their individual grievances as a joint case.
The respondent claimed that as they were separate cases, a joint trial should not
be allowed as there are different causes of action. The Calcutta High Court stated
that all the three cases should be joined together, irrespective of defects of
misjoinder.

Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh (2019)


The cause of action had arisen when the plaintiff challenged the gift deed
after a period of approximately twenty-two years from the date of the
execution of the same. The plaintiff in the case has challenged the gift deed
with the allegations that the gift deed is sham, hence not binding. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court, after hearing both sides held that this suit is
prohibited by the Limitation Act, 1963 and, the plaint needs to be rejected
under Order 7 Rule 11of the Code.

Common questions

Powered by AI

In Prem Lala Nahata Vs Chandi Prasad, the Calcutta High Court ruled that misjoinder errors should not thwart justice if the cases are inherently linked. Despite procedural misjoinder, the court allowed the joint trial to proceed, highlighting the flexibility in addressing procedural defects when substantive justice is at stake .

Rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 prevents the court from engaging in proceedings where fundamental legal requirements are not met, such as absence of cause of action, undervaluation, or non-filing of duplicates. This preliminary scrutiny saves time, reduces backlog, and directs resources towards cases with grounded legal issues .

A court must ascertain the existence of a cause of action to ensure the plaintiff has presented a legitimate reason to bring the suit. This assessment prevents misuse of judicial resources and ensures that only matters with substantive legal issues are adjudicated .

The grounds for rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 include: (a) lack of cause of action, (b) undervaluation of the relief claimed, (c) insufficiently stamped plaints, (d) suit barred by any statute, (e) failure to file a duplicate copy of the plaint .

In Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh, the challenge to a gift deed was barred by the Limitation Act as it was not brought forward within the statutory period, approximately twenty-two years after execution. Delayed legal actions without sufficient justification fall outside the allowable timeframe set by the Limitation Act .

The Supreme Court held that a defendant cannot file a written statement before the court has decided on an application for rejection under Order VII Rule 11. The application must be resolved first, allowing the defendant to respond with a written statement only if the application is rejected .

The R.K. Roja Vs U. S. Rayudu case set the precedent that a court must first address an application for rejection under Order VII Rule 11 before proceeding with subsequent procedural steps like filing a written statement. This sequence ensures procedural order and prevents unnecessary legal activity until substantial issues are resolved .

Order 7 Rule 10 deals with the return of the plaint when the court lacks jurisdiction, requiring it to be presented in the appropriate court. In contrast, Rule 11 involves the rejection of a plaint based on various substantive grounds, such as lack of cause of action or improper valuation, without regard to jurisdiction .

A procedural error such as failing to file a plaint in duplicate can lead to its rejection under Order 7 Rule 11, even if a valid cause of action exists. This requirement ensures procedural correctness and facilitates the judicial process .

Locus standi is crucial because it determines whether the plaintiff has the right to bring a case to court by showing a violation of a legal right. Without locus standi, the plaintiff cannot establish that they have suffered legal injury, leading to the suit being potentially dismissed as it fails to establish a ground for action .

You might also like