JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Respondents filed two suits for permanent injunction against petitioners before learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nainital, which are numbered as Civil Suit No. 8 of 2025 and Civil Suit No. 9 of 2025. In those suits, petitioners moved application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, which were rejected. Petitioners filed Revision Petitions challenging Trial Court’s order, which were dismissed by learned District Judge, Nainital. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioners have approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

2. Since common questions of law and fact are involved in these writ petitions, therefore they are heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, facts of Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1636 of 2025 alone are being considered and discussed.

3. Petitioners are defendants in Civil Suit No. 08 of 2025 filed by Mr. Alok Nanda, seeking permanent injunction. In the said suit, petitioners filed application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC stating that plaintiff has suppressed the material fact that the defendants (petitioners herein) are in actual physical possession of property, in terms of a registered agreement dated 27.10.2023, therefore, the suit is frivolous and amounts to abuse of process of law.

4. Learned Trial Court rejected the said application by holding that while considering application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, correctness of the plaint averments cannot be examined and plaint can be rejected if no cause of action is disclosed from the plaint averments. Revisional Court affirmed Trial Court’s order.

5. The provision contained in Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is extracted below:-

“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 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 for 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.”

6. From the aforesaid provision, it is revealed that a plaint can be rejected when- (i) it does not disclose a cause of action; (ii) the relief claimed is undervalued and not corrected within the time allowed by Court; (iii) plaint is insufficiently stamped and is not rectified within the time granted by the Court; (iv) the suit is barred by law; (v) plaintif has failed to enclose required copies of plaint; and (vi) plaintiff fails to comply with provision of Rule 9.

7. It is now well settled that power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be exercised at any stage of suit, before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to defendant or at any time before conclusion of trial.

8. Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that for deciding an application under Clause (a) & (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 CPC, the averment made in the plaint are germane and the plea taken by defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant. Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering somewhat similar facts in the case of Soumitra Kumar Sen v. Shyamal Kumar Sen, (2018) 5 SCC 644 ha