Point of Law: It is perspicuous and indubitable, even from a plain reading of afore provision that, what is provided for is rejection of plaint if any of causes.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner received summons from the learned Munsiff's Court, Alathur, regarding institution of O.S.No.262/2021 on its files by the 1st respondent herein against him; and immediately moved the said Court for rejection of the plaint, under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

2. The specific case of the petitioner is that the plaint instituted by the 1st respondent is incompetent because, inter alia, it does not disclose a valid cause of action; that the claim impelled therein is contrary to his own stand earlier taken by the said respondent in Ext.P1 Suit; that the statements contained therein will render the Suit to be barred in law; and hence that its prosecution amounts to abuse of processes of law.

3. The petitioner asserts that, unfortunately, the learned Munsiff, without understanding the true ambit of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, refused to even consider his application on its merits, as manifest from Ext.P11, holding that his contentions can be evaluated only after “full-fledged trial in the suit” (sic).

4. The petitioner, through his learned counsel – Smt.Parvathi Menon, vehemently asserts that the course adopted by the learned Munsiff is contrary to the scheme of the CPC and without adverting to the purpose for which Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC has been endrafted, namely, to weed out unworthy plaints at the stage of its inception itself. He thus prays that Ext.P11 be set aside and the learned Munsiff be directed to reconsider his application on its merits, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

5. Sri.K.S.Bharathan – learned counsel for the 1st respondent, in response, asserted that Ext.P11 is irreproachable. He argued that, as rightly found by the learned Munsiff, the objections raised by the petitioner, in his application preferred under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, are ones which can be adjudicated only after the trial of the suit is over. He vehemently submitted that since the petitioner appears to have raised objections against the plaint, saying that it is hit by res judicata and that there is no valid cause of action shown therein, the learned Munsiff could have done nothing more, but to have issued Ext.P11. He thus prayed that this Original Petition be dismissed.

6. Sri.Millu Dandapani – learned counsel appearing for the 9th respondent, supported the petitioner, arguing that, in case where a plaint does not disclose a valid cause of action, or is vitiated on account of any of the specified reasons mentioned in Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC being attracted, the Trial Judge is required to peremptorily reject it; and cannot wait for the trial to be over for this purpose. He submitted that, by doing so, the very purpose and intent of the afore provision would be frustrated, as has been now done through Ext.P11 order.

7. The files record that even though summons have been validly served on the other respondents, they have chosen not to be present in person, or to be represented through counsel; thus inferentially guiding me to the impression that they have nothing to offer in opposition to the various reliefs sought for in this Original Petition.

8. Before I venture into the assessment of the syllogistic contentions as afore, I am certain that a glance through Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is necessary; for which purpose, I extract it as under:

“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 written upon 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 n