Back
ORISSA HIGH COURT
Ananda Chandra Behera, J.
Niharkanti Mishra – Petitioner
versus
Nihar Ranjan Patnaik and Ors. – Opp. Parties
C.R.P. No.19 of 2024
Decided on 3.4.2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint – Suit for declaration of title, cancellation of sale deeds and for permanent injunction – Whether a plaint discloses cause of action or not is essentially a question of fact – Whether, cause of action does or does not exist in plaint of plaintiffs must be found from readings of plaint itself – Plaint can never be rejected for non-existence of cause of actionbuta plaint can be rejected for non-disclosure of cause of action – There is distinction between non-disclosure of cause of action and non-existence of cause of action – Non-disclosure of cause of action in a plaint would fall within ambit of Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. for rejection of plaint, whereas, non-existence of cause of action would not fall within ambit of Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. for rejection of plaint – Averments of plaint of plaintiffs are clearly and unambiguously disclosing cause of action for filing of suit by plaintiffs against defendants – Impugned order passed by trial courtrejecting petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. upheld. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15)
Result:Revision Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT
Ananda Chandra Behera, J.—This revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C,1908 has been filed by petitioner (defendant No.3 in the suit vide C.S. No.169 of 2023 pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Bhubaneswar) against the Opposite Parties Nos.1 and 2 (plaintiffs in that suit vide C.S. No.169 of 2023) arraying the defendant Nos.1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of that suit vide C.S. No.169 of 2023 as proforma Opposite Parties challenging an order of rejection of his petition dated 05.01.2024 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C.,1908 passed on dated 13.03.2024 by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Bhubaneswar in C.S. No.169 of 2023.
2. The factual backgrounds of this revision, which prompted the petitioner (defendant No.3 in the suit vide C.S. No.169 of 2023) for filing of the same is that, the suit vide C.S. No.169 of 2023 was filed by the O.P. Nos.1 and 2 of this revision being the plaintiffs against the defendants including the petitioner in this revision praying for declaration of title, cancellation of sale deeds and for permanent injunction stating about the accrual of its cause of action in Para No.16 of their plaint.
3. In that suit vide C.S. No.169 of 2023, the defendant No.3 filed a petition on dated 05.01.2024 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. Praying for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiffs (O.P. Nos.1 and 2 in this revision) on the ground that, the suit of the plaintiffs vide C.S. No.169 of 2023 is without cause of action and as such there is no cause of action for the plaintiffs to file the suit. For which, the plaint of the plaintiffs vide C.S. No.169 of 2023 is liable to be rejected.
4. The plaintiffs (O.P. Nos.1 and 2 in this revision) objected to the same by filing their objection denying the claim of the defendant No.3.
5. After hearing from both the sides, the Trial Court rejected such petition dated 05.01.2024 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. of the defendant No.3 as per Order dated 13.03.2024 assigning the reasons that,
“when the averments in the plaint of the plaintiffs are disclosing the cause of action for filing of the same, then, the question of rejection of their plaint does not arise”.
6. On being dissatisfied with the said order dated 13.03.2024 passed by the learned trial court rejecting the petition dated 05.01.2024 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. of the defendant No.3, he (defendant No.3) challenged the same by filing this revision.
7. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2.
8. It appears from Para Nos.10 and 11 of the petition dated 05.01.2024 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. of the petitioner (defendant No.3) that, he (petitioner) had filed such petition for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiffs, on the ground that, there no cause of action i.e. non-existence of cause of action in the plaint of the plaintiffs for filing the suit vide C.S. No.169 of 2023.
9. Now, it is to be seen, whether the above ground raised by the defendant No.3 (petitioner in this revision) for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiffs vide C.S. No.169 of 2023 on the ground of non-existence of cause of action in the plaint of the plaintiff is entertainable under law?
10. Whether, a plaint discloses cause of action or not is essentially a question of fact. So, whether, cause of action does or does not exist in the plaint of the plaintiffs must be found from the readings of the plaint itself.
11. It is the settled propositions of law that, a plaint can never be rejected for non-existence of cause of action, but, a plaint can be rejected for non-disclosure of cause of action.
12. There is distinction between non-disclosure of cause of action and non-existence of cause of action.
13. So, non-disclosure of cause of action in a plaint would fall within the ambit of Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint, but, whereas, non-existence of cause of action would not fall within the ambit of
(1) Rejection of plaint – Whether a plaint discloses cause of action or not is essentially a question of fact – Whether, cause of action does or does not exist in plaint of plaintiffs must be found f....
A plaint cannot be rejected for incorrectness in the cause of action or non-filing of documents at the inception of the case as long as it discloses a cause of action under CPC.
The court reiterated that issues of locus standi and cause of action must be determined at trial, and the plaint's allegations are presumed true for rejection petitions under Order 7, Rule 11.
The rejection of a plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 must consider substantive issues and cannot be based solely on procedural grounds if differing issues are raised in subsequent petitions.
The rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 must be supported by clear reasoning, and failure to provide such reasoning renders the order unsustainable.
The importance of looking into the averments in the plaint for adjudicating upon the application under Order VII Rule 11 and the supervisory power conferred by Section 115 of the CPC.
Timely applications for plaint rejection are essential; attempting to reject a plaint after evidence closure undermines the judicial process and is considered an abuse of court resources.
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
