Subhashish Kumar Sahu, BBA LLB Student, KIIT School of Law
The person aggrieved against any enforcement of his rightful rights or duties, or gain monetary compensation, or any other relief, files a suit in the civil court which must necessarily come within the ambit of suits of civil nature under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 in order to be governed by the said legislation. In pursual of the relief, the plaintiff is required to put forth his contentions towards court in a definitive way and a manner as prescribed by the act in order to be accepted by the court and proceed with the initiation of suit. If the plaintiff, fails to fulfill all the conditions as outlined, it may end up in Rejection of Plaint which is our topic of discussion here.
A Plaint is piece of document submitted by the plaintiff to the court in order to initiate a civil proceeding. It is the legal document in which the plaintiff states the facts of the claim and the required relief. It is also well addressed by Section 26 of CPC that every suit shall be instituted with the presentation of plaint followed by an affidavit where the facts shall be proved as per the manner prescribed in Order VI Rule 15A. It is an essential element acting as a cornerstone of a civil suit that lays down the vital cause of action for proceeding with any suit and enabling court to understand and adjudicate the matter effectively. Hence, it is of utmost importance to furnish its particulars in the manner prescribed, as the essentials remain to mentioning the Name of the court, Details of the plaintiff as well as defendant, Cause of action, Jurisdiction, Facts of the case, Relief claimed, Valuation along with court fees and the verification clause.
Order VII Rule 1 of the CPC, 1908 enumerates the particulars to be required in a plaint and in Rule 2 provides some additional requirements such as stating the exact value of money claimed in case of money suits. But, if the plaintiff fails to furnish such particulars in the prescribed manner, within the prescribed limitation period, it may lead to the Rejection of Plaint as per Order VII Rule 11. The plaint can be rejected for various causes, it can be due to non-disclosure of the cause of action, undervaluation of the relief claimed, insufficiently stamped, if barred by law, if not filed in duplicate, or where the plaintiff fails to comply with Rule 9 of the order.
It is also provided that if there is any time period provided by the court for correcting the valuation or rectifying the stamps, the plaintiff needs to do the necessary within the time period else the court would not extend it unless by recording the reasons in writing that if precluded, it would cause grave injustice or if the plaintiff proves a justified reason.
The court also considers some of the additional factors while granting in addition to the preliminary grounds as per Rule 11, if it is a frivolous or vexatious litigation, abuse of process to delay another ongoing process, Non-Joinder or Mis-Joinder of parties. But, in some of these cases, the court usually Returns the plaint instead of rejection as per Rule 10 which is often misunderstood as the same, but in the scenario of return of plaint, it can be refiled in the same court by rectifying the minute procedural errors or the competent jurisdiction.
The Rejection of plaint by the court is often read with section 151 of the CPC, as the court may suo moto exercise it in order to save the court’s time and prevent abuse, bringing it in the ambit of inherent powers of court. This can also be viewed as a preliminary filter which is to be applied to every suit before the lengthy procedures. The court possesses the powers to scrutinize each piece of the plaint against the basic requirements as per Order VII.
The procedure for rejection of plaint apart from court exercising it suo moto can also be raised by the defendant of highlight the deficiencies and file an application in pursuit of it. The application her must include all the specific grounds with relevant arguments and necessary attachments for seeking such rejection and is generally brought into picture after the defendant appears. The court while entertaining such must consider the plaint as a whole without going deep into the merits of the case and must not dissect the plaintiff into parts.
The Rule 13 states that the plaintiff is not precluded from filing another suit after curing the defects and the order for rejection must be recorded in writing stating the reasons as per Rule 12. But rejection is often seen as a dismissal to suit which is completely different and it occurs when the plaintiff is in default of appearance or fails to prosecute the case diligently or even after the merits of the case. Now, if a suit is rejected the various implications that it has on the plaintiff are that it delays the proceedings whereby the plaint is refiled incurring additional cost along with some potential loss of rights. So, in order to prevent these the plaintiff must adhere to the rules keeping the plaint concise with evidence to support the claims.
This power can be exercised at any stage by the court, but a preliminary objection should be raised here as soon as possible which was held in Vithalbhai (P) Ltd Vs. Union Bank of India, (2005) 4 SCC 315. The landmark case of Popat and Kotecha Property Vs. State Bank of India staff Association, (2005) 7 SCC 510 held that the application of Rule 11(d) is only made where the statement as made in the plaint without any doubt or dispute shows that the suit is barred by any law. And while dealing with an application for rejection of plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, Court cannot go into disputed question of fact as per M. Gurudas Vs. Rasaranjan, (2006) 8 SCC 367. With regard to the same, the court in Prem Lala Nahata Vs.Chandi Pol. Sikaria, AIR 2007 SC 1247 held that the defect of misjoinder of parties and causes of action cannot be a ground for rejection of plaint under Rule 11(d). In the case of Murti Sri Sheoji Bhagwan Vs. M/s Hindalco, Renukoot, Mirzapur, 1997 (30) ALR 134 (All), it was held that the rejection of plaint under Order 7, Rule 11(b) CPC is proper and justified if the plaintiff failed to correct the valuation clause within time fixed by Court.
Plaint not to be rejected at the outset under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC as barred by limitation if the question of limitation appears to be a mixed question of law and fact as held in Narne Rama Murthy Vs. Ravula Somasundaram (2005) 6 SCC 614. The plaint even cannot be rejected at the outset under Order 7, Rule 11(d) CPC on the ground of doubtful boundaries of the land as held in Natarajan Vs. Ashimbai, AIR 2008 SC 363. The court in the case of Future Sector Land Developers Private Limited Vs Bagmane Developers Private Limited, (2023) 5 SCC 368 held that once a plaint is rejected u/o 7, rule 11 CPC, the only remedy is to file a fresh plaint within the parameters of Order 7, rule 13 CPC.
The Three-Judge bench in Chhotanben Vs Kirtibhai Jaikrushnabhai Thakkar, (2018) 6 SCC422(Para 15) clarified that only the averments in the plaint, and not the averments of the written statement, can be seen at the stage of deciding application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. Under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC read with Order 14, Rule 2 CPC, civil court has power to decide its own jurisdiction and the question of maintainability of the suit as per the case of Thirumala Tirupati Devasthanam Vs. Thallappaka Ananthacharyu, (2003) 8 SCC 134. The court in the case of Future Sector Land Developers Private Limited Vs Bagmane Developers Private Limited, (2023) 5 SCC 368 held that applications under the order VII , rules 10 & 11 of CPC, 1908 cannot be allowed simultaneously.
The order of rejection can also be appealed under Section 96 of CPC as first appeal. The primary objective of such a provision is to stop the incorrect and baseless petitions forming improper grounds of pleading meanwhile preventing overload of the case in courts which stand no legal basis as well as to give effect to a serious legal drafting of plaints. This serves as an indispensable weapon in the hands of civil court to eliminate these types of plaints and early termination of the inadequately and inefficiently drafted suits.
