Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Dharam Pal - Appellant
Vs.
Smt. Shahnaz Begum - Respondent
OMP No. 396 of 2023 in Civil Suit No. 58 of 2022
Decided On : 01-04-2024
Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Rejection of plaint - Summary Dismissal of Suit - [Vexatious, Illusory, Meritless] - [Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell] - [Order VII, rule 11 CPC] - The court discussed the provisions of Order VII, rule 11 CPC and the conditions for rejection of a plaint. It emphasized that the court must determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action and whether the suit is barred by any law. The court also highlighted that the power to terminate a civil action at the threshold is drastic and must be strictly adhered to. The court referred to various judgments to support its decision and concluded that the present application for rejection of the plaint was dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The defendant filed an application under Order VII, rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of an unregistered agreement to sell. The defendant claimed that the plaint was vexatious, illusory, and did not disclose any cause of action. The plaintiff refuted the allegations and argued that the suit was maintainable.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaint disclosed a cause of action in favor of the plaintiff and was not vexatious. It emphasized that the correctness of the allegations made in the plaint cannot be tested summarily and must be adjudicated based on pleadings and evidence. The court dismissed the application for rejection of the plaint.
Issues: The issues revolved around whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action, whether the suit was vexatious, and whether the application for rejection of the plaint should be allowed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to strictly adhere to the conditions for rejection of a plaint under Order VII, rule 11 CPC. It highlighted that the power to terminate a civil action at the threshold is drastic and must be exercised based on a meaningful reading of the plaint and the documents relied upon. The court also emphasized that the correctness of the allegations made in the plaint cannot be tested summarily and must be adjudicated based on pleadings and evidence.
Final Decision: The court found no merit in the application for rejection of the plaint and dismissed the same.
Key Points: - The power to reject a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC is drastic and must be exercised on a meaningful reading of the plaint and documents (!) (!) . - The plaint must disclose a cause of action; if not, or if barred by law, the plaint can be rejected, with strict adherence to the conditions (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The court must consider the plaint read as a whole along with documents annexed under Order VII, Rule 14 CPC to determine cause of action and/ or bar by law (!) (!) (!) . - In this case, the plaint discloses a cause of action for specific performance and is not vexatious; the application to reject the plaint was dismissed (!) (!) . - In testing under Order VII, Rule 11, the court cannot rely on the defendant’s pleadings or merits; it must assess solely the averments and attached documents (!) . - The remedy under Order VII, Rule 11 can be exercised at any stage, including before registration, after summons, or during trial (!) (!) . - The judgment cites Dahiben and subsequent authorities reinforcing that the proper test is whether a cause of action exists when reading the plaint with attached documents; otherwise, rejection is warranted (!) (!) . - The standard to reject includes whether the suit is vexatious, illusory, or merely clever drafting intended to circumvent the law; such drafting can be nippered early under this provision (!) (!) . - The court held that inconsistent averments in the plaint do not by themselves negate a cause of action; the plaint may still disclose one (!) . - The final outcome in this matter: no merit in the application to reject the plaint; plaint dismissed as maintainable (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep Sharma, J.
OMP No. 396 of 2023
By way of instant application filed under Order VII, rule 11 CPC, prayer has been made on behalf of applicant/defendant (hereinafter, ‘defendant’) for rejection of the plaint filed by the non-applicant/plaintiff (hereinafter, ‘plaintiff’) on the ground that the same is vexatious, illusory, meritless and not disclosing any cause of action. It is averred in the application that the averments contained in the plaint as well as documents annexed therewith clearly reveal that the plaintiff has miserably failed to establish that there is any cause of action on the basis of unregistered agreement dated 10.8.2021. It has been further averred that perusal of FIR annexed with the plaint reveals that unregistered agreement dated 10.8.2021, has been signed by a person other than the defendant. If it is so, suit against the defendant is not maintainable. Defendant has further claimed that there is no privity of contract between the defendant and the plaintiff, as such, present suit being not maintainable deserves to be rejected in terms of provisions contained under Order VII, rule 11 CPC. It has been further averred in the application that the plaintiff by way of clever drafting has created an illusion of cause of action, which is not permissible in law, as such, failed to make out a clear case to sue the defendant, therefore, the plaint deserves rejection at the threshold.
2. Aforesaid claim put forth by the defendant has been refuted by the plaintiff by filing reply, wherein it is stated that since the defendant has already lost right to file written statement and previous application filed under same provision was withdrawn, without liberty to file afresh, present application is not maintainable and same has been filed to defeat the rightful claim of the plaintiff. It has been further claimed on behalf of the plaintiff that the defendant is trying to take defence, which is not permissible inasmuch as during investigation of the FIR, defendant and her family members have admitted the receipt of amount taken as advance towards agreement to sell dated 10.8.2021 and now, by way of filing the application, attempt is being made to hoodwink the court by making false assertions, which are not supported from the record. Plaintiff has further stated that the averments made in the application are totally scandalous, qua which the plaintiff reserves his right to take appropriate action against the defendant. Plaintiff has further refuted the allegations contained in the application on the ground that though agreement to sell has been executed inter se defendant and the plaintiff, but now the defendant, is trying to wriggle out of the terms and conditions of agreement, as such, approached this Court, in the instant proceedings filed under Order VII, rule 11 CPC.
3. Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant, while making this court peruse the averments contained in the plaint, attempted to argue that there is no cause of action, for the plaintiff to file suit, rather same being totally vexatious, containing false allegations, deserves to be rejected in terms of provisions contained under Order VII, rule 11 CPC. While making this Court peruse allegations contained in the FIR annexed with the plaint vis-à-vis contents of the plaint, Mr. Sood submitted that the suit for specific performance sought to be rejected in terms of provisions contained under Order VII, rule 11 CPC is based upon wrong facts, which in any eventuality cannot be proved by the plaintiff, if permitted to pursue the remedy of civil suit. He submitted that the contents of plaint are baseless, wrong and contrary to the documents filed with the plaint, as such, no declaratory suit could be filed, as such, the plaint deserves to be rejected. Perusal of FIR annexed with the plaint clearly reveals that agreement to sell dated 10.8.2021, has been signed by a person, other than the defendant. If it is so, it
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power to reject a plaint under Order VII, rule 11 CPC is drastic and must be exercised based on a meaningful reading of the plaint and the....
The limitation for specific performance suits begins upon notice of refusal to perform, and the plaint must be assessed as a whole to determine if it discloses a valid cause of action.
A unilateral cancellation of a registered agreement of sale is invalid; the cause of action based on subsequent knowledge and payments keeps the suit within limitation.
A suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell and cancellation of sale deeds is barred by limitation if it is filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Article 54 of the Limita....
(1) Rejection of plaint – For the purpose of invoking Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, averments made in plaint and accompanying documents have to be only exclusively examined and no evidence can be looked ....
The court held that a plaint can only be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 if it does not disclose a cause of action, and the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact.
A plaint cannot be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 when limitation depends on disputed facts, requiring a full trial to establish cause of action.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
