IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that a weak case is not a ground for rejecting a plaint, and the trial court should not engage in an elaborate inquiry into the merits of the case when determining the disclosure of cause of action.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. This appeal is taken up for disposal at the admission stage taking into account that the plaint of the suit was rejected. No doubt, there are various parties in the instant appeal, but as the plaint was rejected at the behest of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 who are the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein and the said respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are duly represented by the learned senior counsel Mr. S. Sarma, this Court have taken up the instant appeal for disposal at this stage.

2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 20.11.2023 passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 536/2023 in Title Suit No. 211/2023, whereby the plaint in the said suit was rejected. Taking into account that rejection of the plaint amounts to a decree, the present regular first appeal has been preferred.

3. It is a trite principle of law that while adjudicating an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the Code), the Court is only required to look into the averments of the plaint and the documents relied thereupon. Order VII Rule II stipulates six conditions when a plaint can be rejected: (1) where the plaint does not disclose a cause of action; or (2) where the reliefs claimed are undervalued and the plaintiffs, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so; or (3) where the reliefs claimed are properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped and the plaintiffs, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time fixed by the Court, fails to do so; or (4) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; or (5) where the plaint is not filed in duplicate; or (6) where the plaint fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9 of Order VII.

4. The proviso which has been added to the said provision categorically mandates that the time fixed by the Court for correction of the valuation or supply 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 any exceptional nature for correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp paper as may be within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause great injustice to the plaint.

5. It is relevant to take note of that from the conditions when a plaint can be rejected enumerated i.e. the conditions No. 2, 3, 5 and 6 permits the Court to pass appropriate orders thereby seeking compliance. It is only for non-compliance after being granted opportunity, the plaint can be rejected. [See Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu vs. Union of India, (2003) 1 SCC 49]. However, as regards the condition No. 1 and 4 i.e. where the plaint does not disclose a cause of action or where the suit appears from the statement of the plaint to be barred by law, the Court has no other option, but to reject the plaint.

6. This Court also finds it very pertinent at this stage to observe that there is a fundamental difference between a plaint not disclosing a cause of action and there is no cause of action in the suit, inasmuch as, in respect to a case falling within the ambit of the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, the Court is required only to read the contents of the plaint along with the documents relied upon and nothing more, and from there the Court has to arrive at an opinion that the plaint on a meaningful reading does not disclose a cause of action. On the other hand, when the expression ‘there is no cause of action in the suit’ it means that after the entire trial of the suit, wherein evidence etc. are taken, the Court comes to an opinion that the plaintiff has failed to make out a case for the purpose of being entitled to the reliefs as sought for. [See Jogeshwari Devi vs. Shatrughan Ram, (2007) 15 SCC 52].

7. The fourth condition i.e. wherein a plaint could be rejected