1. Suit for permanent injunction — Plaint rejection application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC by defendant — Alleged forcible dispossession. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 682
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
MANEESH SHARMA, J.
Shashikant Sharma, S/o. Kailash Chand Sharma – Petitioner
Versus
Hanuman Sahay Choudhary, S/o. Kalyan Sahay Chaudhary – Respondent
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 17 of 2026
Decided On : 05-02-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Pradeep Mathur
For the Petitioner: Mr. Pradeep Mathur
Under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the court must exclusively examine the plaint's averments to determine if a cause of action exists or the suit is barred by law. Mixed questions of fact and law cannot be decided at this stage to prevent 'mini trials'.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 7 Rule 11 - Rejection of plaint - Scope and ambit - While considering an application for rejection of a plaint, the court must confine itself exclusively to the averments made in the plaint and not venture beyond the same - If the plaint discloses a valid cause of action and the statements therein are not barred by any law, the application for rejection must be dismissed - Pleas involving mixed questions of fact and law cannot be adjudicated at this stage as it would amount to conducting a 'mini trial'. (Paras 5, 16, 17 and 18)
(B) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 7 Rule 11(c) - Insufficient court fees - The bar under Clause (c) is not attracted unless the concerned court has directed the plaintiff to pay the deficient court fee and the plaintiff has failed to comply with such direction. (Para 13)
(C) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 7 Rule 11 - Objections regarding non-joinder or misjoinder of necessary parties, or bars under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, do not fall within the ambit of this rule. (Para 12)
Facts of the case:
A suit for permanent injunction was filed by the respondent claiming possession of a property based on a letter of possession. The petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint on several grounds, including lack of cause of action, insufficiency of court fees, non-joinder/misjoinder of parties, and bars under the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and a local development authority act. The trial court rejected the application, observing that the court must limit its examination to the averments in the plaint.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the plaint clearly disclosed a cause of action and the requisite court fees were paid according to the nature of the relief sought without any prior direction from the trial court to correct a deficiency. The other objections raised by the petitioner were either outside the scope of Order 7 Rule 11 or were mixed questions of fact and law to be decided during the trial.
Issues: Whether the trial court's order rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was legally sustainable and whether the plaint was liable to be rejected based on the grounds of lack of cause of action or statutory bars.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that for the purpose of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only the averments of the plaint are to be examined. Since the plaint disclosed a valid cause of action and was not barred by law on its face, and since the objections raised involved issues a trial must resolve, the trial court's order did not suffer from any jurisdictional error or legal infirmity.
Result: Civil Revision Petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- practice and procedure
- property law
- civil procedure code
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner sought rejection citing bar under Section 41(h) SRA, non-joinder, undervaluation, no cause of action, limitation; plaintiff opposed. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Court must examine only plaint averments; plaint discloses cause of action and not barred by law; objections are mixed questions of fact and law. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
4. For Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only plaint averments examined; rejection only if no cause of action or barred by law; other pleas deferred to trial. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 )
5. Revision petition dismissed; impugned order upheld; no jurisdictional error or perversity; stay applications disposed. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 )
6. What is the scope of inquiry under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC?
Only the averments in the plaint are to be examined; the court must not venture beyond the plaint, and mixed questions of fact and law cannot be decided at this stage. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 )
7. Can objections like non-joinder or misjoinder of parties be considered under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC?
No, such objections do not fall within the ambit of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC; they are not grounds for rejection of plaint. (Para 12 )
8. Is a plaint liable to be rejected for undervaluation or insufficient court fee if the court has not directed correction?
No, the bar under Clause (c) of Order 7 Rule 11 is not attracted when the court has not required the plaintiff to pay deficient court fee or supply stamp-paper. (Para 13 )
9. Can a suit be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 on the ground of being barred by another Act when the defendant has not raised it?
No, such objection, if raised by a defendant, can be considered during trial; the court at the Order 7 Rule 11 stage only examines plaint averments. (Para 15 )
ORDER :
MANEESH SHARMA, J.
1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 28.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge No.18, Jaipur Metropolitan-I in Civil Suit No.464/2025, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC was rejected.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendant No.1/petitioner, claiming possession on the basis of the letter dated 20.11.2017, and sought a decree for permanent injunction against the defendant No.1/petitioner. In the plaint, it was narrated that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 is in lawful possession of the suit property and the plaintiff/respondent No.1 is bent upon forcefully dispossessing him. In the plaint, the plaintiff pleaded that the cause of action accrued on 05.09.2025, the date on which defendant No. 1/petitioner allegedly vandalized the suit property and attempted to forcibly evict the plaintiff therefrom.
3. After service upon the defendants, the defendant No.1/petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC, and sought rejection of the plaint inter alia on the grounds that: the suit is barred by Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ('SRA, 1963'), there is non-joinder/ misjoinder of necessary parties, the suit is undervalued and the plaintiff has paid insufficient Court fee, the suit is frivolous/vexatious in nature, the suit does not disclose any cause of action, and the suit is barred by limitation.
4. Thereafter, the plaintiff/Respondent No.1 chose not to file a written reply to the application, opting instead to advance oral arguments. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 vehemently contested the said application while submitting that the alleged grounds for rejection of the plaint are baseless. Further, it was argued that the suit was instituted within the prescribed period of limitation and clearly disclosed a valid cause of action. It was further argued that the objections regarding misjoinder or non-joinder of parties fall outside the scope of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC; it was therefore asserted that the defendant No.1/petitioner's application sans merit, and the plaintiff/respondent No.1 prayed for dismissal of the application.
5. After hearing the arguments of both parties, the learned Trial Court, vide the impugned order dated 28.10.2025, dismissed the \ defendant No. 1/petitioner's application, while observing that, when considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court must confine itself to the averments made in the plaint, and not venture beyond the plaint, and that the grounds of rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC are not attracted in the instant case.
6. Being aggrieved of which, the defendant No.1/petitioner preferred the present revision petition.
7. It is apt to reproduce the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, which reads 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 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,
