Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

The Supreme Court (SC) has held that a plaint cannot be rejected in part under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the matter of Kum. Geetha, D/O Late Krishna & Ors v. Nanjundaswamy & Ors.

What is the Background of the Kum. Geetha, D/O Late Krishna & Ors v. Nanjundaswamy & Ors. Case?

• The plaintiffs had filed a suit for partition and separate possession.
• Four years after the suit was instituted, the defendants filed a petition seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11, CPC.
• Trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the plaint does disclose a cause of action.
• The High Court proceeded to allow the application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC in part, and rejected the Plaint with respect to property.
• Hence, the present appeal is presented in the SC.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia stated that “In simple terms, the true test is first to read the plaint meaningfully and as a whole, taking it to be true. Upon such reading, if the plaint discloses a cause of action, then the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC must fail. To put it negatively, where it does not disclose a cause of action, the plaint shall be rejected.”
• The SC further determined that the Karnataka High Court incorrectly applied the established principles of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. Therefore, the SC ruled that the High Court's decision to partially reject the plaint was legally incorrect.

What is the Provision of Rejection of Plaint?

• The provision for rejection of plaint is provided under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.
  • ORDER VII ‘Plaint’ - Rule 11 - Rejection of plaint
    • 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 returned 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.

Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.

• • In K. Akbar Ali v. Umar Khan (2021), SC has opined that the grounds mentioned under Order VII Rule 11 are not exhaustive i.e., the court can reject the plaint even on other grounds if it thinks fit to do so.