Order VII Rule 11 CPC

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra has held that clarified that rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC must be based solely on the plaint’s averments, without considering the defendant’s defence or external evidence. It emphasized that whether a suit is barred by law should be determined from the plaint alone, not from facts raised by the defendant. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Karam Singh v. Amarjit Singh & Ors. (2025).

What was the Background of Karam Singh v. Amarjit Singh & Ors. (2025) Case ? 

• The appellant, along with Dilbag Singh, filed a civil suit seeking declaration of ownership over agricultural land, possession thereof, mesne profits, and permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondents. 
• The original owner of the suit land was Ronak Singh alias Ronaki, who died intestate on 5th October 1924, leaving behind his widow Kartar Kaur. 
• A succession dispute arose between Kartar Kaur and Chinki and Nikki, who were sisters of Ronak Singh and predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs. 
• During the pendency of the succession dispute, Kartar Kaur allegedly executed a gift deed in favour of one Harchand in respect of the suit property. 
• The sisters of Ronak Singh challenged the validity of the gift deed before the civil court. 
• On 22nd March 1935, the civil court declared the gift deed as invalid on the ground that Kartar Kaur possessed only limited rights over the property. 
• By decree dated 11th September 1975, the gift deed was set aside and Kartar Kaur was declared as the owner in possession of the suit land. 
• Consequent upon the decree, mutation was sanctioned and entered in favour of Kartar Kaur on 13th May 1976. 
• During the pendency of the mutation proceedings, Kartar Kaur died on 28th December 1983. 
• After her death, the defendants produced a registered Will dated 15th December 1976, allegedly executed by Kartar Kaur in their favour, and claimed mutation on the basis thereof. 
• By order dated 29th April 1984, the revenue authorities ordered mutation in favour of the legal representatives of Ronak Singh's sister based on natural succession, rejecting the defendants' claim based on the Will. 
• An appeal filed by the respondents was dismissed by the Collector vide order dated 15th April 1985. 
• The respondents carried the mutation matter to higher courts through successive rounds of litigation. 
• The litigation arising out of the mutation proceedings finally concluded against the plaintiffs on 20th July 2017. 
• Thereafter, the plaintiffs instituted the present suit on 31st May 2019, claiming themselves to be natural heirs of Kartar Kaur through the sisters of Ronak Singh. 
• The plaintiffs challenged the Will dated 15th December 1976 as null and void and an act of fraud, and sought declaration of their ownership. 
• The defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was hopelessly barred by limitation. 
• The defendants contended that since the Will was set up in 1983 and the plaintiffs were fully aware of its existence during mutation proceedings, the suit for declaration challenging the Will was barred by three years' limitation. 
• The defendants also alleged concealment of material facts regarding Civil Suit No.648/2012 filed by the father of plaintiff no.1, wherein the mutation order was challenged without challenging the Will, and the plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC vide order dated 17th May 2013. 
• The defendants claimed that the present suit was barred by Order II Rule 2 CPC on account of the earlier suit. 
• The trial court rejected the defendants' application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC vide order dated 7th January 2020, holding that the suit was not ex facie barred by limitation and that the question of limitation was a mixed question of law and fact. 
• Aggrieved, the defendants preferred a civil revision before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. 
• The High Court allowed the revision vide ex parte order dated 27th January 2022 and rejected the plaint. 
• The recall application filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed vide order dated 4th July 2022.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that while considering rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, only the averments made in the plaint are to be considered to find out whether the suit is barred by any law, and the defence is not to be taken into account at this stage. 
• The Court noted that neither the plaint nor any document on record indicated that the Will allegedly executed by Kartar Kaur was probated or its validity was tested and upheld in regular civil proceedings. 
• Mutation entries do not confer title and serve merely a fiscal purpose to realise tax from the person whose name is recorded in the revenue records. 
• The plaint averments indicated that the mutation proceedings culminated in 2017 and the suit was instituted within three years thereafter. 
• The suit was not merely for declaration of the Will being null and void but also for possession based on title. 
• Where a suit is for possession of immovable property based on title, the limitation period is twelve years when the possession of the defendants becomes adverse to the plaintiff, as per Article 65 of the Limitation Act. 
• Whether the defendants perfected their title by adverse possession would be a mixed question of law and fact and can be addressed only after evidence is led, and cannot be made the basis to reject the plaint at the threshold. 
• Where several reliefs are sought in a suit, if any one of the reliefs is within the period of limitation, the plaint cannot be rejected as barred by law under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. 
• Though the limitation for filing a suit for declaration of title is three years, for recovery of possession based upon title, the limitation is twelve years from the date the possession becomes adverse. 
• Since the first suit filed by the predecessor-in-interest was not tried and the plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, a fresh suit with appropriate relief cannot be prima facie barred by Order II Rule 2 CPC. 
• The High Court failed to consider the plaint averments in their entirety and was swayed only by the fact that the Will was thirty-six years old, overlooking that the validity of the Will was questioned throughout in mutation proceedings which settled in 2017. 
• The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's orders and restored the trial court's order, directing the trial court to proceed with the suit and clarifying that its observations shall not be taken as an opinion on the merits of the issues.

What is Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Rejection of Plaint?

• Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides for rejection of plaint in specific circumstances enumerated thereunder. 
  • Clause (a) mandates rejection of plaint where it does not disclose a cause of action. 
  • Clause (b) provides for rejection where the relief claimed is undervalued and the plaintiff fails to correct the valuation within the time fixed by the Court. 
  • Clause (c) deals with cases where the relief is properly valued but the plaint is insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff fails to supply requisite stamp-paper within the time fixed. 
  • Clause (d) mandates rejection where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. 
  • Clause (e) provides for rejection where the plaint is not filed in duplicate. 
  • Clause (f) stipulates rejection where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9 of Order VII. 
• The proviso stipulates that time for correction of valuation or supplying stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by exceptional cause and refusal would cause grave injustice. 
• The power to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 is an extraordinary power and must be exercised with great caution and circumspection. 
• Under clause (d), the Court must determine from the averments in the plaint itself whether the suit is barred by any law, including the law of limitation. 
• The scope of enquiry under Order VII Rule 11(d) is limited to the face of the plaint and the documents annexed thereto or referred to therein. 
• The defence set up by the defendant cannot be considered while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 
• The power should be exercised only in clear and manifest cases where the plaint is ex facie barred. 
• Where determination of limitation requires examination of evidence or consideration of mixed questions of law and fact, the plaint cannot be rejected under clause (d). 
• The Court cannot travel beyond the four corners of the plaint while considering an application for rejection under Order VII Rule 11. 
• Where several reliefs are claimed and even one relief is within limitation, the plaint cannot be rejected in its entirety as barred by law. 
• The provision should not be used to shut out genuine claims merely on technical grounds without full adjudication on merits.