A plaint cannot be partially rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; each cause of action must be adjudicated separately, affirming judicial examination necessity.

ORDER :

(M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.)

Petitioners-plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.675/2022 are at the doors of this Court calling in question an order dated 30.03.2024 by which the concerned Court answers the application in I.A.No.3 filed by defendant Nos.1 to 7, 24 and 38 seeking rejection of the plaint partially.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the application itself was filed for rejection of the plaint partially and not the entire plaint. Since the issue stands covered by plethora of judgments of the Apex Court that a plaint cannot be rejected partially, the petition on this short ground deserves to succeed.

3. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.S.P.Kulkarni, appearing for the respondent No.3 would submit that he be reserved liberty to file an appropriate application before the concerned Court.

4. The Apex Court in VINOD INFRA DEVELOPERS LTD. v. MAHAVEER LUNIA & ORS., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1208, at paragraphs 8, 9.5, 9.6 and 9.7, has held as follows:

"8. The position of law is that rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is permissible only when the plaint, on its face and without considering the defence, fails to disclose a cause of action, is barred by any law, is undervalued, or is insufficiently stamped. At this preliminary stage, the court is required to confine its examination strictly to the averments made in the plaint and not venture into the merits or veracity of the claims. If any triable issues arise from the pleadings, the suit cannot be summarily rejected. Keeping in mind this settled principle of law, we proceed to examine whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

9.5. Furthermore, Section 23 of the Registration Act mandates that any document required to be registered must be presented for registration within four months from the date of its execution. This requirement has not been fulfilled in the present case, as the power of attorney and the agreement to sell, both executed in 2014, remain unregistered. Despite the execution of the agreement to sell on 24.05.2014, no attempt was made by Respondent No. 1 to have it registered within the stipulated period. This inaction further supports the appellant's contention that the said agreement is not only inadmissible under Sections 17 and 49 of the Act, but also legally ineffective due to non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of timely registration. The failure to seek specific performance or register the document within the period prescribed under Section 23 renders the foundational document unenforceable in law. That apart, the revocation of the Board Resolution and Power of Attorney prior to the execution of the impugned sale deeds vitiates the authority under which those deeds were executed by Respondent No. 1. Accordingly, serious triable issues arise, which must be adjudicated by a competent civil court.

9.6. However, the High Court erred in treating the second cause of action - pertaining to the sale deeds registered on 19.07.2022 - as merely “academic”, and proceeded to reject the plaint in its entirety without undertaking a judicial examination of this distinct issue. This approach is contrary to the well settled legal principle that a plaint may be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC only if, on a plain reading of the plaint, it discloses no cause of action or falls within the other narrowly defined grounds under the said provision, such as under-valuation, insufficient court fees, or bar by any law. In this context, we may place reliance on the judgment in Central Bank of India (supra), wherein, this Court while examining the jurisdiction of civil courts in disputes involving immovable property and proceedings under the Securiti