C.R.P.No.151 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 25.01.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

C.R.P.No.151 of 2023

and

C.M.P.No.1284 of 2023

Mr.R.Ganesh

...

Petitioner

Vs

ICICI Bank Ltd.,

Rep.by Legal Manager,

No.1, Cenotaph Road, Teynampet,

Chennai-600 018.

...

Respondents

Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India to set aside the Order and Decretal Order passed in

I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.S.No.1398 of 2022 by the XXII Asst. City Civil Court

at Chennai.

For Petitioner :

Mr.K.Muthamil Raja

1/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.151 of 2023

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated

09.12.2022, passed in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.S. No.1398 of 2022. The

revision petitioner is the defendant and the respondent instituted a suit for

recovery of money.

2.The revision petitioner/defendant filed an I.A. No.2 of 2022 under

Order VII Rule 11 to reject the plaint. The Trial Court adjudicated the issues

and made a finding that the plaintiff has stated that the bank sanctioned a

car loan of Rs.6,49,500/- on 17.11.2018 and the revision

petitioner/defendant has agreed to repay the same in 67 months instalments

at the rate of Rs.15,018/- with the interest of 18.00 per cent, per annum. The

plaintiff has also filed the documents along with the plaint, that is, the loan

application submitted, wherein the revision petitioner had applied for loan

and a copy of disbursement memo was also filed. When there is a definite

2/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.151 of 2023

cause of action projected in the plaint and the relevant documents are filed,

the trial court dismissed the Interlocutory application for rejecting the plaint.

3.The power under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is to be exercised

sparingly by the Courts. All the suit are to be adjudicated on merits and in

accordance with the law. Lenient view is certainly not desirable when the

plaint and cause of action reveals certain facts and therefore, the Courts are

expected to be doubly cautious while exercising the power under Order VII

Rule 11 of CPC. There may be vexatious suits which all are instituted by the

litigants. May that as it be. Even in such cases, if there are certain doubtful

facts or otherwise, then conducting a trial would be more preferable than

rejecting the plaint. Order VII Rule 11 of CPC enumerates rejection of plaint

on certain circumstances as contemplated under sub-clause (a) to (f) in Rule

11.

4. Order VII Rule 13 of CPC denotes: “The rejection of the plaint

on any of the grounds hereinbefore mentioned shall not of its own force

3/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.151 of 2023

preclude the plaintiff from presenting a fresh plaint in respect of the same

cause of action.”

5.Holistic reading of Order VII Rule 11 and Rule 13 of CPC would

reveal that Order VII Rule 11 is intended to reject the plaint more on

technical grounds rather on merits. Thus, even in case, a plaint is rejected

under Order VII Rule 11 by the Courts, then the plaintiff is entitled to

institute a fresh suit by correcting the cause of action or the mistakes or

otherwise, by invoking Order VII Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Thus, rejection of plaint is not a total bar for institution of a fresh suit by the

plaintiff which can be instituted after setting out the correct cause of action

or by rectifying the errors or mistakes if any found, which was the basis for

rejection of the plaint.

6.Careful reading of Order VII Rule 11 would reveal that the Courts

are empowered to reject the plaint on certain specific circumstances. The

language employed in Order VII Rule 11 Sub-clause (a) is that “where it

4/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.151 of 2023

does not disclose a cause of action”, it does not state “where there is no

cause of action”. There is a difference betw