O. VII, R. 11---Rejection of plaint---Principles relating to rejection of plaint under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C stated.
A plaint cannot be rejected in piecemeal under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. Even if one prayer contained in the plaint is found to be maintainable in the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, the plaint cannot be rejected in part. What is essentially required is that the plaintiff must demonstrate that not only a right has been infringed in a manner that entitles him to a relief but also that when he approached the Court, the right to seek that relief was in subsistence. Nothing more than the averments of the plaint have to be seen for the purposes of adjudicating whether the plaint unveiled any cause of action. Howeyer, the dearth of proof or weakness of proof in the circumstances of the case does not furnish any justification for coming to the conclusion that there was no cause of action disclosed in the plaint, because for the rejection of plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., the Court cannot take into consideration pleas raised by the defendants in the suit, as at that stage, the pleas raised by the defendants are only contentions in the proceedings, unsupported by any evidence on record. However, if there is material apart from the plaint which is admitted by the plaintiff, the same can also be looked into and taken into consideration by the Court while deciding an application under Order VII, Rule 11. C.P.C. Moreover, the Court may, in exceptional cases, consider the legal objections in the light of averments of the written statement but the pleading as a whole cannot be taken into consideration for the rejection of plaint. The Court has to presume the facts stated in the plaint as correct for the determination of such application. In case of any mixed questions of law and facts, the right methodology and approach is to allow the suit to proceed to the written statement and discovery phases and to determine the matter either by framing preliminary issues or through a regular trial. This rule does not justify the rejection of any particular portion of the plaint or a piecemeal rejection, as the concept of partial rejection is seemingly incongruous to the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. However, it should be kept in mind that astute drafting for creating illusions of cause of action are not permitted in law, and a clear right to sue ought to be shown in the plaint. Where there is a joinder of multiple causes of action, and at least some of these causes could potentially lead to a decree, a plea of demurrer cannot be admitted to reject the plaint. Similarly, if there are several parties and the plaint discloses a cause of action against one or more of them then, too, the plaint cannot be rejected, as what is required in law is not the reading of the plaint in fragments but reading it as a whole. The Court is under an obligation to give a meaningful reading to the plaint and if it is manifestly vexatious or meritless, in the sense that it does not disclose a clear right to sue, the court may reject the plaint, but before rejecting it must determine whether litigation of such a case will be absolutely vexatious and an abuse of the process of the court.
Undoubtedly, the plaint can be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., at any stage of the proceedings to culminate the civil action, on the philosophy that incompetent lawsuits should be buried at their inception in order to save the precious time of the Court which may be consumed and dedicated in serious and genuine litigation, but at the same time, this underlying principle does not give license to invoke the same in every lawsuit just to prolong or drag the proceedings with mala fide intention or ulterior motives. On the contrary, such application must articulate, distinctly, how and in which condition, as enumerated under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., is the plaint liable to be rejected, rather than filing it with sweeping or trivial allegations to waste the valuable time of the Court.
0 Comments