Back
2026 Supreme(SC) 1334
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UJJAL BHUYAN, ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.
G. Pazhanivel – Appellant
Versus
S. Thilagavathy – Respondent
Civil Appeal No.13154 of 2026
Decided On : 05-11-2026
Important Points
(1) Rejection of plaint – Power to reject plaint under provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC can be exercised at any stage of proceedings – Such power may be exercised even prior to registration of plaint.
(2) Rejection of plaint – Without considering plaint as a whole and without its meaningful reading, Court cannot reject plaint.
(3) Likelihood of suit being dismissed after trial does not furnish a ground for Court to reject plaint prior to trial.
(4) Rejection of plaint at a stage prior to its registration ought to be duly recorded.
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VII Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint – Power to reject plaint under provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC can be exercised at any stage of proceedings commencing from presentation of plaint followed by its registration and any stage thereafter – In a given case, such power may be exercised even prior to registration of plaint – It would be in interest of administration of justice that such rejection of plaint at a stage prior to its registration also ought to be duly recorded – Rejection of plaint has character of ‘decree’ as defined by Section 2(2) of CPC – Permitting rejection of plaint in an unregistered or unnumbered proceeding to go unnoticed without any record has its own disadvantages – Formal registration of plaint by itself would not clothe plaint with a shield of invincibility as its maintainability can always be questioned at any stage in exercise of power under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. (Paras 11 and 17)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VII Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint – Suit seeking decree for declaration of title to suit property and for permanent injunction – Suit is not barred by law – Besides prayer for redemption of mortgage deed styled as sale deed, plaintiff had also sought relief of permanent injunction so as to restrain defendant from disturbing his peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit property – It was not permissible for Trial Court to ignore material averments made in plaint nor could it refuse to read plaint as a whole – In wake of specific pleadings made in plaint disclosing cause of action for filing suit and seeking various reliefs, plaint was not liable to be rejected in a summary manner by Trial Court – Likelihood of suit being dismissed after trial does not furnish a ground for Court to reject plaint prior to trial – If a plaint discloses cause of action and suit does not appear to be barred by any law, it has to go for trial – Impugned Judgment and Order set aside and plaint restored for being duly registered. (Paras 14, 15, 16 and 19)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal questions correctness of order passed by Trial Court and upheld by High Court rejecting plaint in exercise of power under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 prior to registration of civil suit.
Findings of Court:
Whenever Trial Court rejects a plaint in exercise of power under Order VII Rule 11 of Code prior to registration of plaint, fact that such plaint stands rejected shall be duly recorded in a register maintained for such purpose under Order IV Rule 2 of Code. In case such provision has not been made in concerned Civil Manual or applicable Rules, High Courts may in exercise of its power conferred by Section 122 of Code take appropriate steps in that regard.
Result : Civil Appeal allowed.
For the Appellant(s): Mr. Shoeb Alam, Sr. Adv. Mr. Tushar Giri, AOR Mr. D. Ravichander, Adv. Mr. Sivagnanam Karthikeyan, Adv. Mr. Aravind Raj, Adv. Ms. Charita Singh, Adv. Mr. Lakshay Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. G. Indira, AOR Mr. Kv Jagdishvaran, Adv. Mr. P Gandepan, Adv. Ms. Anjali Singh, Adv. Mr. Joseph Manavalan, Adv. Mr. G Senthamizh, Adv. Mr. A Abinesh Gandhi, Adv.
JUDGMENT :
ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, J
1. This appeal questions the correctness of the order passed by the trial Court and upheld by the High Court rejecting the plaint in exercise of power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19081[For short, ‘the Code’] prior to registration of the civil suit.
2. The appellant-plaintiff claims to be the owner of the suit property, more particularly described in the schedule annexed to the plaint. The same is a piece of land claimed to be owned by the plaintiff. It is alleged that pursuant to a registered Settlement Deed dated 26.02.2021, the suit property was settled in favour of the plaintiff by his son. The plaintiff being in need of money borrowed an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- from the husband of the respondent-defendant at interest rate of 24% per month. It is the case of the plaintiff that on the insistence of the defendant’s husband, a sale deed of the suit property was got registered on 15.03.2021 in the name of the defendant. Despite the aforesaid, the possession of the suit property continued with the plaintiff. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the sale deed was executed by way of security for the amount borrowed from the defendant’s husband. Subsequently, the plaintiff was in a position to repay the amount borrowed. He, therefore, offered to repay the loan amount of Rs.25,00,000/- with interest. However, the defendant avoided to execute a sale deed in the plaintiff’s favour. The defendant also attempted to take forcible possession of the suit property on 25.05.2025. On this cause of action, the plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit seeking a decree for declaration of his title to the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from disturbing the plaintiff’s peaceful possession. The prayers made in the suit read as under:
- “VI. The plaintiff therefore prays that a decree may be passed in his favour
i) Declaring plaintiff’s title to the suit property and for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant and his men, agents and servants by a decree of permanent injunction not to disturb plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property,
ii) Redeeming the mortgage deed, styled as sale deed dated 15.03.2021 registered on the file of Sub-Registrar, Kadampuliyur as document No: 927/2021 in book No: I
iii) Directing the defendant to execute a sale deed, reconveying the suit property to plaintiff by a decree of mandatory injunction,
iv) Directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff the cost of this suit and
v) Granting all other just and necessary reliefs.”
3. It appears that on presentation of the suit, the same came up before the learned Principal District Judge, Cuddalore. Prior to the suit being registered, the learned Principal District Judge heard the plaintiff and perused the documents filed along with the plaint. On the ground that the sale deed dated 15.03.2021 did not contain any provision for re-sale of the suit property and as no agreement to that effect was filed by the plaintiff, it was held that the defendant had the full right of enjoyment of the suit property by virtue of the said sale deed. For these reasons, the plaint was rejected and refund of court fees was directed. This order was passed in Unnumbered O.S. being 19R Nos.8886/2025, dt. 20.06.2025, and 8973/2025, dt. 23.06.2025.
4. The plaintiff, being aggrieved by the rejection of the plaint, preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras2[For short, ‘the High Court’]. The Division Bench was of the view that rejection of the plaint by the trial Court was proper for the reason that neither from the settlement deed executed by the plaintiff’s son nor from the sale deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant could an inference be drawn that the sale deed executed by the plaintiff was in the nature of a mortgage deed or a deed of conditional sale with right to reconvey the property. It held that for lack of cause of a
