An application under Order 7 Rule 11 must be evaluated on plaint averments, with previous suit dismissal impacting current filings; validity of prior suits requires evidentiary resolution by the trial court.

Signature Not Verified

3. Heard learned counsel for applicants.

4. It appears that earlier, an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was dismissed by the trial court by order dated 05.07.2021, which was challenged by the applicants before this Court. By order dated 28.11.2023, the Coordinate Bench of this Court remanded the matter back to the trial court to decide the application afresh after considering the defence of plaintiffs that they had never filed the suit on earlier occasion. After the matter was remanded back, impugned order has been passed, and once again, application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed.

5. Although multiple arguments have been advanced by counsel for applicants, but moot question for consideration is as to whether application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be considered at this stage or not?

6. It is a well-established principle that an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has to be decided on the basis of plaint averments. The Supreme Court in the case of Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead Through Legal Representatives and Others, reported in (2020)

7 SCC 366 has held as under:

"23.1. We will first briefly touch upon the law applicable for deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, which reads as under: “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 Signature Not Verified 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-papers 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-papers, 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.”

(emphasis supplied)

23.2. The remedy under Order 7 Rule 11 is an independent and special remedy, wherein the court is empowered to summarily dismiss a suit at the threshold, without proceeding to record evidence, and conducting a trial, on the basis of the evidence adduced, if it is satisfied that the action should be terminated on any of the grounds contained in this provision.

23.3. The underlying object of Order 7 Rule 11(a) is that if in a suit, no cause of action is disclosed, or the suit is barred by limitation under Rule 11(d), the court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in the suit. In such a case, it would be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation, so that further judicial time is not wasted.

23.4. In Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi [ Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi , 1986 Supp SCC 315 . Followed in Manvendrasinhji Ranjitsinhji Jadeja v. Vijaykunverba, 1998 SCC OnLine Guj 281 : (1998) 2 GLH 823] this Court held that the whole purpose of conferment of powers under this provision is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless, and bound to prove abortive, should not be permitted to waste judicial time of the court, in the following words : (SCC p