The court emphasized that the entire plaint must be read as a whole and no evidence can be looked into for invoking the jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

JUDGMENT :

ANANDA SEN, J.

1. The petitioner, in this application, has challenged the order dated 16.7.2022 passed in M.C.A. No. 304 of 2021 in Original Suit No. 307 of 2020/Eviction Suit No. 12 of 2012 by the learned Additional Munsif-XXV, Ranchi, whereby the learned court below has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. Order VII Rule 11 CPC provides for rejection of a plaint. A plaint can be rejected where it does not disclose a cause of action, or where inspite of time given by the Court, the valuation of under valued suit is not corrected, or the plaint is written upon a paper insufficiently stamped and the plaintiff fails to supply the requisite stamp, or where the suit appears to be barred by any law from the statement of the plaint itself, or where it is not filed in duplicate or where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provision of Rule 9. For better appreciation, it is necessary to quote Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which reads as follows:

“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, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.”

Thus on the aforesaid grounds only a plaint can be rejected in terms of Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

4. While dealing with an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the entire plaint has to be read as a whole, as held by Hon'bler Supreme Court in Abdul Gafur and Another vs. State of Jttarakhand and Others, (2008) 10 SCC 97. Further no evidence can be looked into for invoking the aforesaid jurisdiction. It is well established that at the stage of invoking order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court should examine the pleadings made in the plaint and from the pleadings if the conditions specified in Order VII Rule 11 CPC is satisfied, then only the Court can exercise the jurisdiction and reject the plaint. At the stage of exercising power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the stand of the defendant in the written statement or in the application for rejection of the plaint is wholly immaterial, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in the case of P.V. Guru Raj Reddy vs. P. Neeradha Reddy and Others, AIR 2015 SC 2485. On this legal proposition, this case has to be decided.

5. The plaintiff filed Original Suit No. 307 of 2020/Eviction Suit No. 12/2012 (copy of the plaint has been annexed) praying therein the following reliefs:

“(a) Decree for delivery of khas and vacant possession of the suit property described in Schedule below to the plaintiffs after evicting the defendant and all persons claiming through or under him.

(b) Decree for realization of Rs.2,52,000/-from the defendant as arrears rent for past three years at the rate of Rs.7,000/-per month as arrears rents for the earlier periods of default starting from May 2005 have become barred by limitation.

(c) Costs of and incidental to the suit