Gujarat High Court upholds rejection of Nirav Madhukar Buch's late Order VII Rule 11 application

The Gujarat High Court has firmly reiterated that an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking rejection of a plaint cannot be entertained at the "fag end of the trial," dismissing a revision filed by defendant Nirav Madhukar Buch and imposing costs of ₹10,000.

Justice Maulik J. Shelat, presiding over the revision against an order of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Valsad, upheld the trial court's refusal to throw out the plaint on limitation grounds, noting that the defendant's plea came far too late in the day.

A Belated Bid to Halt the Suit

The underlying suit, Special Civil Suit No.39 of 2019, was instituted by Lilaben Bhikhubhai Thakor and others. In October 2025— after the plaintiff's evidence had concluded and during the recording of the defendant's evidence—defendant No.8 Nirav Madhukar Buch moved an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.

His argument was straightforward: the plaintiff had admitted in cross-examination that she knew about the property dispute since 1984. The suit filed in 2019 was, he contended, hopelessly time-barred, and the plaint ought to be rejected. By the time the High Court heard the revision, the suit had already reached the stage of final arguments before the trial court.

Plaint Rejection Is Not a Substitute for a Trial on Merits

The High Court found a fundamental flaw in the defendant's approach. The sole basis for the plaint rejection application was an alleged admission made by the plaintiff during cross-examination—evidence that cannot be looked at while adjudicating an Order VII Rule 11 plea.

" Prima facie , the entire emphasis of the defendant no.8 to reject the plaint, is on the basis of the so-called admission forthcoming during the cross-examination of the plaintiff. The petitioner unfortunately could not understand the difference between scope and interference of the Court to reject the plaint at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and dismissal of the suit upon appreciation of evidence," Justice Shelat observed.

The Court stressed that a plaint can be rejected only by a bare reading of its averments. The defence evidence and documents filed by the defendant, including any admissions in cross-examination, are irrelevant at this stage.

A Practice of Misuse Checked

The Court also took a dim view of the timing of the application. Filing an Order VII Rule 11 plea at any stage is a right, but that right cannot be stretched to infinity. Relying heavily on the Supreme Court's full bench decision in M/s Bhagya Estate Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (Civil Appeal No.4570 of 2023, decided on 11.09.2024), the High Court noted the rampant misuse of such applications to delay trials.

"Merely because the defendant has right to file an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC at any stage of proceeding would not mean that the defendant can be permitted to file such application at the fag end of trial ," the judgment states. The Supreme Court had held that once written submissions have been filed, evidence led, and the matter is ripe for final arguments, entertaining a plaint rejection plea defeats the provision's objective and wastes judicial resources.

"Accordingly to my view, such type of application filed at such a belated stage of trial of the suit requires to be rejected with the costs, otherwise for any reason, defendant may engage the trial court in adjudication of such application, thereby he would not allow the trial court to adjudicate the lis on merits," Justice Shelat added.

Trial Court's Order Vindicated

The High Court clarified that the trial court's order did not indicate any acceptance of the limitation argument. It had merely recorded the defendant's submission and rightly noted that the issue of limitation was already framed as a separate issue to be decided after a full trial. Thus, there was no jurisdictional error in dismissing the application.

Dismissing the revision with costs of ₹10,000, the Court directed the petitioner to deposit the amount with the District Legal Services Authority, Valsad, within one month. The trial court has been asked to verify compliance.

"The impugned application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC was correctly not entertained by the trial court; rather, it was to be dismissed with costs," the judge concluded, reinforcing that procedural weapons cannot be used to stall a case that has travelled the full distance of trial.