Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)
Rejection of Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC: Grounds, Stage and Effect
Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is the court's threshold filter. It allows a suit to be stopped before it consumes any judicial time, where the plaint on its own showing cannot be entertained. The rule lists six grounds, but the litigation it generates concentrates on four questions: what material the court may look at, at what stage the power may be exercised, whether part of a plaint may be rejected, and what follows a rejection. These notes cover each ground and each question, with the leading authorities.
1. The Provision
§ Order VII Rule 11, CPC 1908 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 written 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. |
Note the opening words: the plaint shall be rejected. Where a ground is made out, rejection is not a matter of discretion but of duty, which is why T. Arivandandam speaks of the court's obligation to nip a meritless suit in the bud. The duty is nevertheless conditioned: in clauses (b) and (c) it arises only after the court has given the plaintiff an opportunity to correct the defect.
Rejection compared with return and dismissal, and the rules governing its application
2. Ground (a): No Cause of Action
The plaint must disclose a cause of action, that is, the bundle of material facts which, if proved, would entitle the plaintiff to the relief claimed. The test is applied on the plaint alone, its averments being assumed to be true, and asking whether, so read, it makes out a case known to law. Three refinements govern its application.
i. A meaningful, not formal, reading. T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467 requires the court to see through clever drafting that creates an illusory cause of action, and to examine the party under Order X where necessary before deciding.
ii. Weak case is not no case. The plaint is not rejected because the claim appears unlikely to succeed, or because the evidence may fail. Rejection follows only where the plaint discloses nothing the law recognises as a right of action: Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Association, (2005) 7 SCC 510.
iii. The plaint is read as a whole. Isolated sentences are not picked out; the averments are read together, and where the plaint, so read, discloses a cause of action, disputed questions of fact are for the trial and not for Rule 11: Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Assistant Charity Commissioner, (2004) 3 SCC 137.
3. Grounds (b) and (c): Undervaluation and Insufficient Stamp
§ The opportunity that must come first Both clauses share a structure that decides most problems on them. The court may not reject at once. It must first require the plaintiff to correct the valuation, or to supply the requisite stamp paper, within a time fixed by the court, and only on his failure within that time does rejection follow. An order rejecting a plaint under clause (b) or (c) without first affording that opportunity is bad, and is liable to be set aside in appeal. Note also the sequence between the two clauses: clause (c) applies where the relief is properly valued but the stamp is insufficient. Undervaluation is clause (b)'s concern; an insufficiency of stamp on a correct valuation is clause (c)'s. |
4. Ground (d): Suit Barred by Law
The critical words are appears from the statement in the plaint. The bar must be apparent on the plaintiff's own pleading, read with the documents filed with it; it cannot be established by the defence or by evidence. The grounds that arise in practice fall into three groups.
Limitation and Rule 11(d)
Limitation is a law within the meaning of clause (d), so a plaint that shows on its face that the suit is out of time is liable to be rejected. Two qualifications are settled. The bar must appear from the plaint itself: where the plaintiff pleads facts founding an exemption under the Limitation Act, or where the question requires evidence to determine when the cause of action accrued, the issue belongs to the trial, not to Rule 11. And Order VII Rule 6 requires a plaint filed after the period to show the ground of exemption relied on, with the proviso allowing the court to permit reliance on a ground not pleaded, if not inconsistent with those stated.
Res judicata and Rule 11(d)
Res judicata under Section 11 is a bar created by law, so it can in principle found a rejection under clause (d). But the plea ordinarily requires a comparison of the pleadings, issues and decision in the earlier suit with those in the later one, and that inquiry goes beyond the plaint. The settled position is therefore this: res judicata supports a rejection under Rule 11(d) only where the plaint itself, with the documents filed with it, establishes the bar without further inquiry, as where the plaint recites the earlier suit and its decision and the identity of the matter is plain on the face of it. Where the question requires the earlier record to be examined and issues compared, it must be tried as an issue in the suit. The same reasoning governs a plea under Order II Rule 2, which additionally requires the earlier plaint to be produced, and so is rarely a Rule 11 matter.
Other statutory bars
The clause also covers a suit instituted without the notice required by Section 80, where no leave under Section 80(2) is pleaded; a suit whose subject matter is excluded from the civil court's jurisdiction by a special statute on the Dhulabhai principles; a suit barred by Section 21A or by an express statutory prohibition; and a suit that the plaint itself shows to be barred by the terms of a governing enactment.
5. Stage, Material and Scope of the Power
At what stage may the power be exercised?
At any stage of the suit. The application may be made before or after the written statement is filed, and the court may act suo motu, since the words of the rule are mandatory. In Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 1 SCC 557 the Supreme Court held that an application under Rule 11 may be decided before the written statement is filed, and that directing the defendant to file his written statement first, before taking up such an application, is an error, since the question is one that can be answered on the plaint alone.
What material may the court consider?
§ The material for a Rule 11 decision Included: the plaint itself, read as a whole and taken to be true, together with the documents filed with it under Order VII Rule 14. Excluded: the written statement and the defence; affidavits and evidence; and any disputed question of fact requiring adjudication. The reason is structural. Rule 11 asks whether this plaint can be entertained at all, not whether the plaintiff will succeed against the defence. The moment the court begins weighing the defendant's version, it has left Rule 11 and entered the trial. |
📖 Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 1 SCC 557 An application under Order VII Rule 11 had been made, and the trial court directed the defendants to file their written statement before it would consider the application. The Supreme Court held this to be an error. It held that for the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11, the averments in the plaint are germane, and the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement are wholly irrelevant at that stage; the power may be exercised at any stage of the suit, before registering the plaint, after issuing summons, or at any time before the conclusion of the trial, and the direction to file a written statement first was contrary to law. Rule: the plaint alone is the material; the defence is irrelevant; and the power may be exercised at any stage, including before the written statement is filed. |
Can part of a plaint be rejected?
No. The settled rule is that a plaint is rejected as a whole or not at all; there is no power of partial rejection, and the court cannot reject some reliefs or some parts of the claim while allowing the rest to proceed. The consequence, which examiners test, is that where some of the reliefs claimed are maintainable, the plaint survives in its entirety, and the objections to the other reliefs must be taken as issues in the suit. The Supreme Court applied this in Sejal Glass Ltd. v. Navilan Merchants Pvt. Ltd., (2018) 11 SCC 780, holding that where a plaint is bad in part and good in part, it cannot be rejected in part under Rule 11.
6. Effect of Rejection: A Decree, and a Fresh Plaint
§ Rejection is a deemed decree By Section 2(2), the expression decree is deemed to include the rejection of a plaint. Two consequences follow. The order is appealable as a decree under Section 96, with a second appeal under Section 100 on a substantial question of law, and not as an order under Order XLIII Rule 1. This distinguishes it from a return under Rule 10, which is an appealable order. The order must be drawn up as a decree and dated as of the judgment, and limitation for appeal runs accordingly. |
§ Order VII Rule 13: the fresh plaint The rejection of the plaint on any of the grounds mentioned shall not of its own force preclude the plaintiff from presenting a fresh plaint in respect of the same cause of action. A rejection therefore decides no right and operates as no res judicata: it holds only that this plaint was bad. Two qualifications follow from the words of its own force. The fresh plaint is a new suit, instituted on its own date, so limitation is computed to that date and a claim that has since become barred cannot be revived. And where the ground of rejection is one a fresh plaint cannot cure, such as a statutory bar arising from the facts themselves, the second plaint meets the same fate. |
7. Return, Rejection and Dismissal Distinguished
Basis | Return, Rule 10 | Rejection, Rule 11 | Dismissal |
|---|---|---|---|
Ground | Want of jurisdiction in the court | A defect in the plaint itself | Failure of the suit on the merits, or default under Order IX |
Material examined | The plaint and the question of jurisdiction | The plaint and its documents alone, taken as true | The whole record and evidence, or the fact of non-appearance |
Nature of the order | An appealable order under Order XLIII Rule 1(a) | A deemed decree under Section 2(2), appealable under Section 96 | A decree on the merits; a default dismissal is an order with its own remedy under Order IX Rule 9 |
What the plaintiff may do | Present the same plaint in the proper court; Section 14 of the Limitation Act excludes time spent bona fide | Present a fresh plaint on the same cause of action under Rule 13, as a new suit | Appeal a dismissal on the merits; apply to set aside a default dismissal, a fresh suit being barred by Order IX Rule 9 |
Res judicata | None | None | Yes, where the dismissal was on the merits |
8. Landmark Judgments on Order VII Rule 11
- T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467. The plaint is read meaningfully and not formally; a vexatious plaint disclosing no clear right to sue must be nipped in the bud.
- Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 1 SCC 557. The plaint alone is germane; the written statement is irrelevant; the power may be exercised at any stage, including before the written statement is filed.
- Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Assistant Charity Commissioner, (2004) 3 SCC 137. The plaint is read as a whole; Rule 11 is not to be used to decide disputed questions of fact.
- Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Association, (2005) 7 SCC 510. The distinction between a plaint disclosing no cause of action and one disclosing a weak case; clever drafting is seen through.
- Sejal Glass Ltd. v. Navilan Merchants Pvt. Ltd., (2018) 11 SCC 780. There is no partial rejection: a plaint bad in part and good in part cannot be rejected in part.
- Order VII Rule 13 with Section 2(2). Rejection is a deemed decree and therefore appealable, yet does not preclude a fresh plaint on the same cause of action.
9. Frequently Asked Questions on Rejection of Plaint
What are the grounds for rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11?
Six: the plaint discloses no cause of action; the relief is undervalued and the valuation is not corrected within the time fixed; the plaint is insufficiently stamped and the stamp is not supplied within the time fixed; the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; the plaint is not filed in duplicate; and the plaintiff fails to comply with Rule 9.
At what stage can a plaint be rejected?
At any stage of the suit. Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra holds that an application under Rule 11 may be decided before the written statement is filed, and that the power may be exercised before registering the plaint, after issuing summons, or at any time before the conclusion of the trial, including suo motu.
Can the written statement be considered when deciding an application under Rule 11?
No. The averments in the plaint, read as a whole and taken to be true, together with the documents filed with it, are the only material. The defence is wholly irrelevant at that stage, since the question is whether this plaint can be entertained, not whether the plaintiff will succeed.
Can a plaint be rejected in part?
No. A plaint is rejected as a whole or not at all. Sejal Glass Ltd. v. Navilan Merchants holds that a plaint bad in part and good in part cannot be rejected in part; where some reliefs are maintainable, the plaint survives and the objections are tried as issues.
Can a plaint be rejected on the ground of limitation?
Yes, where the plaint itself shows the suit to be out of time, since limitation is a law within clause (d). But where the plaintiff pleads facts founding an exemption, or where evidence is needed to determine when the cause of action accrued, the question belongs to the trial.
Can res judicata be a ground for rejection under Rule 11(d)?
Only where the plaint and the documents filed with it establish the bar without further inquiry. Res judicata ordinarily requires a comparison of the pleadings, issues and decision in the earlier suit, which goes beyond the plaint, and must then be tried as an issue in the suit.
Is rejection of a plaint appealable?
Yes. By Section 2(2) the rejection of a plaint is a deemed decree, so it is appealable as a decree under Section 96, with a second appeal under Section 100 on a substantial question of law. A return under Rule 10 is by contrast an appealable order under Order XLIII Rule 1(a).
Can a fresh suit be filed after the plaint is rejected?
Yes. Order VII Rule 13 provides that rejection does not of its own force preclude the presentation of a fresh plaint on the same cause of action. The fresh plaint is a new suit, so limitation is computed to its own date, and a ground of rejection that a fresh plaint cannot cure will defeat it again.
10. Related Topics in This CPC Series
- Return, Rejection and Dismissal Compared
- Plaint: Meaning, Essential Particulars and Contents
- Order VII: The Plaint, Return and Rejection
- Doctrine of Res Judicata: Section 11