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…!
Rejection of plaint based on coram non judice (lack of jurisdiction) is generally not permissible at the rejection of plaint stage; such issues are triable and require evidence and trial, not summary rejection ["Supriya Basu VS Monika Sengupta - Calcutta"].
The primary basis for rejection under Order VII Rule 11 is whether the plaint discloses a cause of action. The merits of the case, including whether the plaintiff will succeed, are not relevant at this stage ["Supriya Basu VS Monika Sengupta - Calcutta"], ["Neelarapu Manjula and 3 Others vs Kandhagatla Srinivas - Telangana"], ["Monika Singh VS Sudha Prasad - Delhi"].
The pleas taken in the written statement or defense are irrelevant during the initial rejection application; the court's focus is solely on the averments in the plaint ["Monika Singh VS Sudha Prasad - Delhi"], ["Salikur Raja Khan S/O Late Atikur Raja Khan VS Jame Masjid Committee - Gauhati"].
Partial rejection of the plaint is generally not permissible; the rejection should be of the entire plaint or not at all. The law emphasizes that the court cannot reject part of a plaint based solely on some issues unless the entire suit is barred or lacks cause of action ["SHIV LAL & ORS Vs SURYA CGHS LTD & ORS - 2015 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 8103"], ["ASHISH KUMAR Vs SMT KAMINI KUMAR & ORS. - Delhi"].
Rejection of a plaint can occur at any stage before the trial concludes, but only if the plaint fails to disclose a cause of action or falls under specific grounds listed in Order VII Rule 11, such as non-payment of court fee, non-compliance with statutory requirements, or if it is barred by law ["Bhagya Estate Ventures Pvt. Ltd. VS Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd. - Supreme Court"], ["Purushottam Rana VS Kanakalata Rana - Orissa"].
Issues such as non-disclosure of cause of action or bar under specific laws are valid grounds for rejection, but the court must examine only the plaint's contents at this stage, not defenses or subsequent pleadings ["Supriya Basu VS Monika Sengupta - Calcutta"], ["Umesh Rai VS Deo Bachan Rai - Patna"], ["M/S ANIL ELECTRICAL THROUGH PROPRIETOR ANIL RAMCHANDRA GHADGE vs SUBHASH RAMCHANDRA GHADGE AND ANR - Bombay"].
The rejection of plaint due to jurisdictional issues (coram non judice) cannot be decided at the rejection stage; such issues require a full trial ["Supriya Basu VS Monika Sengupta - Calcutta"].
Analysis and Conclusion:Based on the cited case law and principles, Coram non judice cannot be taken up at the rejection of plaint stage. Such jurisdictional issues are not grounds for rejection under Order VII Rule 11 and must be decided during the trial or on a substantive hearing. The rejection of a plaint is primarily limited to disclosure of cause of action, statutory compliance, and legal bar, and not on jurisdictional grounds ["Supriya Basu VS Monika Sengupta - Calcutta"]. Therefore, coram non judice issues should be dealt with in the trial stage, not at the rejection of plaint stage.
In civil litigation, jurisdiction is the bedrock of any court's authority. Imagine filing a suit only to face a rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, and questioning whether the court itself lacked jurisdiction—invoking the doctrine of coram non judice. A common query arises: can coram non judis be taken up at rejection of plaint stage? This post delves into this critical issue, drawing from established precedents and procedural nuances to provide clarity for litigants and practitioners.
While this analysis offers general insights based on judicial interpretations, it is not a substitute for professional legal advice tailored to specific circumstances.
Coram non judice—Latin for before a court without jurisdiction—refers to proceedings by a court lacking inherent, territorial, pecuniary, or subject-matter jurisdiction. Such actions are void ab initio, meaning they are nullities from the outset and non est (do not exist in the eyes of the law) Sarup Singh VS Union of India - 2010 8 Supreme 46M. D. Bhoruka Textiles Limited VS Kashmiri Rice Industries - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 1110.
Key principle: An order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity and coram non judis Sarup Singh VS Union of India - 2010 8 Supreme 46M. D. Bhoruka Textiles Limited VS Kashmiri Rice Industries - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 1110. These defects cannot be cured by consent, acquiescence, or subsequent proceedings, and can be challenged at any stage, including execution or collateral attacks Sarup Singh VS Union of India - 2010 8 Supreme 46.
The rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is a preliminary decree, disposing of the suit on specific grounds like non-disclosure of cause of action or suit barred by law Rishabh Chand Jain VS Ginesh Chandra Jain - 2016 3 Supreme 196. Crucially, if the court lacks jurisdiction to even entertain or reject the plaint, the order itself becomes a nullity Sejal Glass Ltd. VS Navilan Merchants Pvt. Ltd. - 2017 0 Supreme(SC) 1029M. D. Bhoruka Textiles Limited VS Kashmiri Rice Industries - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 1110.
Courts have affirmed: The principle that a court acting without jurisdiction renders its proceedings void applies equally at the stage of rejecting a plaint Sejal Glass Ltd. VS Navilan Merchants Pvt. Ltd. - 2017 0 Supreme(SC) 1029M. D. Bhoruka Textiles Limited VS Kashmiri Rice Industries - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 1110. Thus, coram non judice can indeed be raised at this stage, rendering the rejection order challengeable as void ab initio Sarup Singh VS Union of India - 2010 8 Supreme 46.
For instance, in Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka (deceased) v. Jasjit Singh, the Supreme Court held that a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity and can be challenged at any stage, including during execution or collateral proceedings Sarup Singh VS Union of India - 2010 8 Supreme 46. This extends to interlocutory orders like plaint rejections.
Several landmark cases reinforce this position:
These precedents establish that rejection orders lacking jurisdictional foundation are themselves decrees that can be assailed on coram non judice grounds Rishabh Chand Jain VS Ginesh Chandra Jain - 2016 3 Supreme 196.
Rejection of plaint is governed strictly by Order VII Rule 11 CPC, focusing solely on plaint averments, not defenses Hafiza Begum VS Shams Din Bhat - 2022 Supreme(J&K) 739. For the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 of the CPC, the averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage Hafiza Begum VS Shams Din Bhat - 2022 Supreme(J&K) 739.
Courts emphasize holistic reading: A plaint cannot be rejected for alleged contradictions or defenses; it must disclose no cause of action ex facie Hafiza Begum VS Shams Din Bhat - 2022 Supreme(J&K) 739Surina Impex Private Limited VS One Plus Fashions Private Limited - 2023 Supreme(Cal) 1562. However, jurisdiction underpins this process—courts must self-assess before acting Rameshwar Prasad Verma VS Seetamani Devi Kushwaha - 2019 Supreme(All) 1275.
In Hasham Abbas Sayyad, partial rejection was impermissible: There is no provision under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of C.P.C. for rejection of plaint in part... Trial court has committed jurisdictional error Umesh Rai Son of Late Tilakdhari Rai VS Deo Bachan Rai Son of Late Nokhelal Rai - 2022 Supreme(Pat) 927. Echoing coram non judice, pleas of inherent lack of jurisdiction can arise at any stage of the proceeding, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceeding Rameshwar Prasad Verma VS Seetamani Devi Kushwaha - 2019 Supreme(All) 1275.
Other rulings clarify limits:- Non-disclosure of insolvency doesn't bar rejection if not ex facie apparent Surina Impex Private Limited VS One Plus Fashions Private Limited - 2023 Supreme(Cal) 1562.- Pre-suit compliance issues (e.g., Section 12A Commercial Courts Act) don't retroactively void jurisdiction if timely State Bank Of India, A Statutory Corporation Constituted Under The State Bank Of India Act, 1955 Having Its Corporate Centre At State Bank Bhavan vs State Bank of India - 2026 Supreme(Bom) 52.- Averments alone suffice; no addition/subtraction for rejection power, exercisable anytime Loom Tex Exports VS Thanneer Panthal Dharma Chathiram - 2019 Supreme(Mad) 3109Loom Tex Exports VS Thanneer Panthal Dharma Chathiram - 2019 Supreme(Mad) 2844.
These integrate seamlessly: While Rule 11 focuses on plaint contents, underlying jurisdiction trumps all, allowing coram non judice challenges.
Not every irregularity invokes nullity—procedural lapses may be curable, but jurisdictional defects cannotSarup Singh VS Union of India - 2010 8 Supreme 46. Waiver or estoppel doesn't apply to inherent jurisdiction voids. However, parties must typically raise it promptly to avoid deemed waiver in non-fundamental cases.
In election or specialized contexts, strict compliance is key, but core jurisdiction remains non-negotiable Radheshyam Darsheema VS Kunwar Vijay Shah - 2020 Supreme(MP) 381.
Courts should mandatorily check jurisdiction before rejecting plaints, as flawed orders invite nullity declarations.
Yes, the doctrine of coram non judice can be invoked at the rejection of plaint stage. Orders passed sans jurisdiction are nullities, challengeable anytime, as affirmed across precedents Sarup Singh VS Union of India - 2010 8 Supreme 46Sejal Glass Ltd. VS Navilan Merchants Pvt. Ltd. - 2017 0 Supreme(SC) 1029. This safeguards procedural integrity under CPC.
Key Takeaways:- Jurisdictional nullities void proceedings ab initio Sarup Singh VS Union of India - 2010 8 Supreme 46.- Applies fully to Order VII Rule 11 orders M. D. Bhoruka Textiles Limited VS Kashmiri Rice Industries - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 1110.- Focus on plaint averments, but jurisdiction first Hafiza Begum VS Shams Din Bhat - 2022 Supreme(J&K) 739.- Challenge promptly for best outcomes.
Consult a legal expert for case-specific strategy—this is general guidance only.
#CoramNonJudice #CPCPlaintRejection #LegalJurisdiction
All these issues are triable issues and the averments taken in the application for rejection of the plaint, cannot be looked into. Only the plaint and documents filed with the plaint must be considered. The plaint discloses a cause of action against all the defendants. ... With regard to the non-maintainability of the suit, the learned Court found that the allegation of non-existence of a privity of contract between the defendant nos. 3 and 4 and the....
At the stage of exercise of power Under Order VII Rule 11, the stand of the Defendants in the written statement or in the application for rejection of the plaint is wholly immaterial. ... It is settled principle of law that there is a difference between non- disclosure of cause of action in the plaint and the absence of cause of action for the suit. The ground for rejection of plaint is failure to disclose a cause of action and not that there is no cause of action for....
For the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 of the CPC, the averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage.” ... may not succeed in the suit cannot be ground of rejection of plaint. ... It is a settled position of law that Plaint cannot be rejected on allegations made by respondent in his written statement or in his application for rejection....
The only issue which arises for consideration before this Court is the stage at which an application seeking rejection of plaint can be filed and entertained. ... When such is the purpose, we fail to understand as to how an application for rejection of a plaint can be entertained at a stage where written submission has already been filed, evidence has been led and the trial has substantially reached the stage of final arguments, as in the present case. ... R....
It is not to be seen at this stage whether the suit itself will be successful, since the merits of the case itself need not be entered into, at the stage of rejection of the plaint. 35. ... At that stage, the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement are wholly irrelevant and the matter is to be decided only on the plaint averments. These principles have been reiterated in Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. v. Ganesh Property [Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. v. ... For t....
. for rejection of some part of the plaint and against some defendants. ... Going by the averments in the plaint, the question whether the plea raised by the appellant is barred under Section 4 of the Act or not could not have been the subject-matter of assessment at the stage when application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. was taken up for consideration. ... Further submission is that for the purposes of Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C. the court is required to look into the statement made in the #HL_STAR....
Hence, at this stage, the plaint cannot be rejected as the plaint discloses a cause of action and the liquidation proceedings do not find any mention. ... The court held that a plaint could be rejected for non-disclosure of cause of action, under valuation of the reliefs or when the suit was barred by law. ... The affidavits of service have been filed in court, indicating that steps have been taken to serve the opposite party as also the learned Advocate. The matter is taken#....
. for rejection of some part of the plaint and against some defendants. ... Further submission is that for the purposes of Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C. the court is required to look into the statement made in the plaint and that too as a whole and neither written statement nor the contents of the petition for rejection of the plaint can be taken into consideration. ... Going by the averments in the plaint, the question whether the plea raised by the appellant is ba....
However, mere non-grant of the interim relief at the ad interim stage, when the plaint is taken up for admission and examination, would not justify the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. ... However, at the same time, the Court observed that the mere non-grant of the interim relief at the ad interim stage, when the plaint is taken up for admission and examination, would not justify the #HL_....
Going by the averments in plaint, the question whether the plea raised by the appellant is barred under Section 4 of the Act or not could not have been the subject matter of assessment at the stage when application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was taken up for consideration. ... She would further submit that partial rejection of plaint would not be permissible if one relief can not be granted under law and alternative relief can be considered, then, rejection of plaint w....
The test for exercising the power under Order VII Rule 11 is that if the averments made in the plaint are taken in entirety, in conjunction with the documents relied upon, would the same result in a decree being passed. At this stage, the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement and application for rejection of the plaint on the merits, would be irrelevant, and can not be adverted to, or taken into consideration.
Rejection of Plaint is a power which can be exercised at any stage of the Suit. While considering a Petition filed for rejection of Plaint, this Court has to see only the averments made in the Plaint as it is, without adding or subtracting anything.
rejection of plaint, this Court has to see only the averments made in the plaint as it is, without adding or subtracting anything. Rejection of plaint is a power which can be exercised at any stage of the suit.
There cannot be a doubt to the legal position that every court has to satisfy itself about its jurisdiction to entertain the suit in respect to a cause of action relating to subject matter of the suit. A decree being nullity cannot be executed by any court of law and if such an objection is taken in execution proceedings, the executing court would stop there. The plea of inherent lack of the jurisdiction of the court on the doctrine of coram non judice can be taken at any stage of the proceeding, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceeding, as such a defect can....
That is essential and necessary in the larger public interest, not only for ensuring adherence to minimum standards of medical education, but for ensuring the those professionally qualified in accordance with the standards in fact, graduate from recognised institutions and serve the public as trusted doctors. The non compliance of those timelines can be at any stage, which results in rejection of those applications. The necessarily entail detailed scrutiny, not only of applications, but it's processing through several stages such as verification and inspection.
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
