Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
The practice of partial rejection is inconsistent with statutory provisions and judicial rulings, which favor rejection of the entire plaint if rejection is warranted ["Manish Goel VS Raghav Goyal - Delhi"], ["Sean Dushyant Manchanda VS Rabia Manchanda - Delhi"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["T W V Elvers VS American Motor Co, Through Latif Ahmad - Lahore"]- ["SAU. JYOTI W/o. PATINGRAO PATIL VS DILIP DHANRALE - Bombay"]- ["SANTOSH KUMARI (NOW DECEESED) THROUGH LRS VS. LOKESH YADAV & ANR. - Delhi"]- ["Umesh Rai VS Deo Bachan Rai - Patna"]- ["Punjab National Bank VS Ikram Khan - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 1572"]- ["Geetha D/o Late Krishna VS Nanjundaswamy - Supreme Court"]- ["Chandrakant Vassudev Lotlikar and Others v. Vaman Mahadev Lotlikar and Others - Bombay"]- ["CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA vs KISHORE KARKERA AND ANR - Bombay"]- ["R.N. Singh vs Murari Mirchandani - Delhi"]- ["Manish Goel VS Raghav Goyal - Delhi"]- ["Capt (retd. )Inderbir Singh Uppal VS Manu Nayyar - Delhi"]- ["INDEL00000159132"]- ["INDEAL00000174848"]- ["Sean Dushyant Manchanda VS Rabia Manchanda - Delhi"]
In civil litigation in India, filing a plaint is the first step to initiate a suit. But what happens when the defendant challenges its validity? A common question arises: Can a plaint be rejected in part? This issue often surfaces under (), which allows courts to reject a plaint on specific grounds like absence of or legal bars. However, the law is crystal clear— is not permitted. This blog post delves into the legal consensus, judicial precedents, and practical implications, drawing from authoritative judgments.
Note: This article provides general information based on established case law and is not a substitute for professional legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your specific case.
Order VII Rule 11 empowers courts to reject a plaint at the threshold if it falls under any of the five clauses:- Does not furnish a .- .- .- .- .
The judicial inquiry is limited to the , read , without considering the defendant's . Crucially, if rejection is warranted, it applies to the entire plaint, not fragments. would undermine the statutory framework and lead to fragmented proceedings.
The and unanimously hold that a plaint cannot be rejected in part. It must be rejected or allowed to proceed to trial. This principle prevents courts from dissecting the plaint based on individual reliefs or causes of action.
In a landmark ruling, the clarified: The provision under Order VII Rule 11 of the provides for rejection of a plaint. The scope of judicial inquiry in an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the is very limited to examining the statement in the plaint. It further emphasized: the plaint cannot be rejected on the basis of the allegations made by the defendant in his or in an application for rejection of plaint. The Court has to read the entire plaint to find out whether it discloses a . Partial dissection is impermissible.
Another judgment reinforces: The plaint has to be rejected or not at all, and a plaint must be rejected if it does not disclose a .
Explicitly, The plaint alone can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11. It cannot be rejected partially. Courts cannot entertain rival contentions or split the plaint.
Consistent across benches: The law does not justify rejection of any particular portion of a plaint; rejection must be entire or not at all.
These rulings underscore that even if some reliefs are barred by limitation or law, the plaint stands or falls together.
Several other decisions echo this stance, providing context in diverse scenarios like limitation, forgery, and partnership disputes.
In a suit involving declaration, cancellation of sale deed, and possession, the court held: The plaint cannot be rejected in part or partially. Ultimately if this Court comes to the conclusion that the suit is barred by limitation qua plaintiff No.1 it could dismiss the same and allow a decree in favour of plaintiff No.2 but no truncated rejection of the plaint can take place. Limitation issues are triable, not grounds for . Separate court fees may be required for distinct reliefs, but rejection remains all-or-nothing.
In partnership dissolution cases, courts repeatedly affirm: A plaint can be rejected and it cannot be rejected in part. Rejection cannot hinge on defendant's or pleas at this stage, as these are mixed questions of fact and law.
Even denials of document execution or prior quasi-judicial decisions do not justify . The plaint's viability is assessed holistically.
These cases illustrate real-world applications, from to claims, always upholding the full-rejection rule.
Litigants sometimes confuse rejection with other tools:
: Allows portions of pleadings. This targets specific defects without dismissing the suit entirely—distinct from Order VII Rule 11.
Amendments (): Courts may reject amendment prayers in part if they introduce mutually destructive pleas or alter the suit's nature. For instance, Amendments to plaints must not alter the substance of the case or allow contradictory claims without proper justification. But this pertains to modifications, not initial rejection.
suits: Mere readiness statements without details don't save a plaint, but evaluation remains plaint-wide.
Thus, while parts can be pruned via amendments or , rejection under Order VII Rule 11 is binary.
The jurisprudence is settled: a plaint cannot be rejected in part; it must be rejected if liable under Order VII Rule 11. This ensures procedural efficiency and fairness, preventing protracted, piecemeal litigation. Litigants should craft robust plaints, while courts apply the test rigorously. For nuanced application to your matter, seek tailored legal counsel.
References:1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Stay informed on civil procedure updates—subscribe for more insights!
#CPC #PlaintRejection #Order7Rule11
This application was eventually rejceted and as the defendant could produce no evidence in defence, the suit was decreed. I am of opinion that, under the circumstances stated above, the lower Court was wrong in refusing to issue a commission for the examination of the defendant as his own witness.
The appellate auttiorty viz. the additional commissioner concurring with the view taken by the Additional collector, Jalgaon, rejceted the appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the instant petition has been filed. ... A member cannot nominate more than one candidate for the office of Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch. Rule 8 lays down the eligibility of person who acts as a proposer, and Rule 9 is the crucial rule which deals is with scrutiniy of the nomination and the point of time when the scrutiny has to take place.
This cannot elevate itself into a rule of law, that once a part of a plaint cannot proceed, the other part also cannot proceed, and the plaint as a whole must be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11. ... In an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC a plaint cannot be rejected in part. This principle has been well established by the Supreme Court in the following decisions: i) Sejal Glass Ltd. v. ... It still remains one....
This cannot elevate itself into a rule of law, that once a part of a plaint cannot proceed, the other part also cannot proceed, and the plaint as a whole must be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11. ... He next submits that the plaint cannot be rejected in part, rather it can only be rejected as a whole or not at all. However, the plea of Benami cannot be taken as a ground for rejecting plain....
On issue of rejection of part of the plaint only but not the whole of the plaint, the law is very clear. It is consistently held that in an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the Court cannot reject part of the plaint. ... Nachhattar Singh Gill [(1982) 3 SCC 487] only a part of the plaint cannot be rejected and if no cause of action is disclosed, the plaint as a whole must be rejected. xxxxx 18. ... ....
This cannot elevate itself into a rule of law, that once a part of a plaint cannot proceed, the other part also cannot proceed, and the plaint as a whole must be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11. ... He next submits that the plaint cannot be rejected in part, rather it can only be rejected as a whole or not at all. However, the plea of Benami cannot be taken as a ground for rejecting plain....
This cannot elevate itself into a rule of law, that once a part of a plaint cannot proceed, the other part also cannot proceed, and the plaint as a whole must be rejected under Order VII Rule 11. ... (Supra) has been reiterated in this judgment and the Court has taken the view that in such eventuality, suit will proceed and it cannot be rejected in part only for one defendant. 19. Now, coming to the the facts of the present case. ......
It cannot be torn up in two parts, one of which is discarded and the other entertained. This is clearly deductible from the language of the rule. Expressions like 'in its entirety' or 'in part' are thus wholly inept in relation to the rejection of the plaint." ... Usgaonkar that the plaint can be rejected only partially in respect of the alternative prayer cannot be accepted at all. In fact, Cl. ... In fact, in that case, apparently, the plaint was not disclosing a cause of action in r....
In an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC a plaint cannot be rejected in part. This principle is well established and has been continuously followed since the 1936 decision in Maqsud Ahmad vs. Mathra Datt and Co. AIR 1936 Lahore 1021. ... The plaint has to be construed as it stands, without addition or subtraction of words. If the allegations in the plaint prima facie show a cause of action, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations are true in fact. D. Ramac....
Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the prayer of the opposite parties for amendment of plaint on an earlier occasion was rejected in part. ... He further submits that mutually destructive pleas cannot be allowed to be taken by way of amendment of plaint. In support of such contention he places reliance upon a decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Debendra Nath Chatterjee Vs. ... In Usha Balashaheb Swami (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the general principle that a....
The plaint cannot be rejected in part or partially. Ultimately if this Court comes to the conclusion that the suit is barred by limitation qua plaintiff No.1 it could dismiss the same and allow a decree in favour of plaintiff No.2 but no truncated rejection of the plaint can take place. The reliance of the learned counsel for the applicant/defendant No.1 on the written statement filed by plaintiff No.1 is misconceived, as he has not relied upon the written statement of plaintiff No.2 which was filed in November, 2006 from which date the suit is well within the period of lim....
This part of the written statement gained support from the plaint itself. It was got up as a nominal document to induce and bring round the Union and Punjab National Bank for a reasonable settlement by use of the name and influence of the plaintiff as a big industrial concern.” In paragraph No.3 of the plaint, the following is stated: “.........In fact in good faith the plaintiff tried to use its influence with the banks to settle the claim of the defendants and even offered to make payment from out of the balance sale consideration to enable the defendants to discharge the....
And whether the plaintiff's prayer for dissolution of partnership firm, rendition of accounts and distribution of the partnership assets can be sustained?. A plaint can be rejected in toto and it cannot be rejected in part.
A plaint can be rejected in toto and it cannot be rejected in part. and whether the plaintiff’s prayer for dissolution of partnership firm, rendition of accounts and distribution of the partnership assets can be sustained?
For dispelling all confusions, the relevant part of the plaint may be reproduced below: 9. This observation of the First Appellate Court has created some cloud regarding the statement of dispossession as available in the records. That the plaintiff humbly states that about 4 years ago the defendants have dug a pond alongwith B scheduled land and at the time of partition made in the year 2001 among the co-sharers of the plaintiff it was found that the defendants have dug their encroaching the B schedule land to their suitable extent silently and thereby the actual quantum of....
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
