Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Plaint cannot be rejected based solely on improbability of the claim - The courts have consistently held that the mere improbability or unlikelihood of a claim does not justify rejection of a plaint. Rejection under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is only permissible if the plaint fails to disclose a cause of action or is barred by law, not on grounds of improbability. ["Yelaboina Kumar vs Guvva Jai Hind - Telangana"] ["Yelaboina Kumar vs Guvva Jai Hind - Telangana"]
Cause of action must be established on the basis of pleadings, not subjective likelihood - The courts emphasized that the existence of a cause of action is a question of fact that must be determined from the pleadings and evidence, not from the improbability or strength of the claim. As long as the plaint discloses a cause of action, rejection is unwarranted. ["Chandra Gupta Talreja and Another vs Parvati Talreja and 10 Others - Telangana"] ["Sri K.Venkatesh and 2 others vs Smt Rani Bai and 5 others - Telangana"]
Rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC is only if the claim is barred by res judicata or law - Several cases clarify that if a claim is barred by res judicata, estoppel, or is otherwise legally barred, then rejection is justified. However, a claim cannot be rejected merely because it appears improbable or unlikely. ["Gopani Narasaiah VS Motilal Surana - Andhra Pradesh"] ["Chandra Gupta Talreja and Another vs Parvati Talreja and 10 Others - Telangana"]
Courts have rejected plaints for non-payment of proper court fee or failure to show cause of action, not on improbability - The grounds for rejection include insufficient court fee or failure to disclose a cause of action, but not on the improbability of the claim. The courts have observed that such issues are to be decided on merits during trial, not at the rejection stage. ["Chandra Gupta Talreja and Another vs Parvati Talreja and 10 Others - Telangana"] ["Sri K.Venkatesh and 2 others vs Smt Rani Bai and 5 others - Telangana"]
The principle that a plaint cannot be rejected for improbability is reinforced by case law - The courts have consistently held that unless the plaint is legally defective (e.g., no cause of action, barred by law), it cannot be rejected on the ground that the claim is improbable or unlikely to succeed. ["SHILAMPUR RAJU PATEL vs SHILAMPUR HAUGI RAO - Telangana"] ["Sri K.Venkatesh and 2 others vs Smt Rani Bai and 5 others - Telangana"]
Analysis and Conclusion:Main points support that the rejection of a plaint cannot be based solely on the improbability of the claim. Rejection is only justified if the plaint fails to disclose a cause of action or is barred by law, as established in multiple citations. The courts have reaffirmed that the core issue for rejection under Order VII Rule 11 is the presence of a legal defect (e.g., no cause of action, res judicata, insufficient court fee), not the subjective assessment of the claim's likelihood of success or its improbability. Therefore, supporting the contention that Plaint cannot be rejected solely on the ground of improbability, as the law mandates a focus on legal sufficiency and procedural compliance rather than the strength or plausibility of the claim itself.
In civil litigation, one of the earliest hurdles a plaintiff faces is the potential rejection of their plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). But can a court dismiss a plaint simply because the plaintiff's claim seems improbable or unlikely to succeed? The answer, grounded in established judicial precedents, is a resounding no. This post delves into the legal question: Give citations supporting contention that Plaint cannot be rejected basing on improbability of Plaintiffs claim. We'll explore the scope of Order VII Rule 11, key principles, and supporting case law to provide clarity for litigants, lawyers, and legal enthusiasts.
Order VII Rule 11 CPC empowers courts to reject a plaint on specific grounds, such as:- Non-disclosure of a cause of action.- Undervaluation of relief without correction.- Insufficient court fees.- Suit barred by law. Mayar (H. K. ) LTD. VS Owners & Parties, Vessel M. V. Fortune Express - 2006 1 Supreme 677
Crucially, this provision does not allow courts to assess the probability or plausibility of the claim's success. The court's role is narrowly confined to checking if the plaint, read as a whole, discloses some cause of action. The scope of Order VII Rule 11 is limited to examining whether the plaint discloses a cause of action, not the plausibility or probability of the claim. Mayar (H. K. ) LTD. VS Owners & Parties, Vessel M. V. Fortune Express - 2006 1 Supreme 677
This principle prevents premature dismissal of cases based on a judge's subjective view of the claim's merits. Instead, such evaluations are reserved for trial, where evidence can be tested.
Courts have repeatedly emphasized that a judge's opinion on the likelihood of success is irrelevant at this stage. Mere opinion by the judge that the plaintiff may not succeed cannot be a valid ground for rejection of the plaint. Mayar (H. K. ) LTD. VS Owners & Parties, Vessel M. V. Fortune Express - 2006 1 Supreme 677
The inquiry must be holistic: Courts are instructed to read the entire plaint as a whole to determine if a cause of action exists, without disqualifying it based on the perceived improbability of the claim. Mayar (H. K. ) LTD. VS Owners & Parties, Vessel M. V. Fortune Express - 2006 1 Supreme 677 Rejection on grounds of improbability or unlikelihood of success is impermissible; the decision is confined to the question of whether the facts disclosed constitute a cause of action. Mayar (H. K. ) LTD. VS Owners & Parties, Vessel M. V. Fortune Express - 2006 1 Supreme 677
This approach aligns with the CPC's objective to ensure access to justice. Dismissing claims prematurely on speculative grounds could stifle legitimate disputes, forcing plaintiffs to endure undue hardship.
At the Order VII Rule 11 stage, no evidence is led, and no affidavits or documents beyond the plaint are considered. The law emphasizes that the assessment of the merits or chances of success is not a ground for rejection at the initial stage; such considerations are reserved for trial on the merits. C. Natrajan VS Ashim Bai - 2007 7 Supreme 532
In contrast, later stages like framing of issues or summary judgment may scrutinize plausibility. But here, the focus remains on pleadings alone.
Landmark rulings underscore this limitation:
These holdings prevent defendants from using rejection applications as a tool to short-circuit trials based on skepticism alone.
While improbability doesn't suffice, rejection is allowed on valid grounds. Examining other precedents highlights the distinction:
Bar by Specific Laws: In a partnership suit, the plaint was rejected for failing to aver the firm's registration, a jurisdictional fact under Section 69(1) of the Partnership Act, 1932. The jurisdictional fact of registration of the partnership firm must be averred in the plaint to avoid the suit being rendered void. Md Mofazzular Rahman VS Md Sarfaraz Alam - 2021 Supreme(Cal) 85 This was a clear statutory bar, not improbability.
Lack of Locus Standi or Evidence Gaps: A suit was not rejected despite contentions of no locus standi, as the plaint averments warranted adjudication. Therefore, it can be said that the suit needs adjudication, as such, the plaint cannot be rejected. Sri K.Venkatesh,and 2 others vs Smt Rani Bai and 5 others - 2024 Supreme(Online)(TS) 7270
Post-Trial Rejections: Claims failing due to insufficient evidence occur at trial, not plaint stage. For instance, mesne profits were scaled back for no definite and certain evidence, deeming trial judge's assessment unrealistic—but this was on appeal, not rejection. Goka Ramu VS Seelam Nageswara Rao (Died) - 2020 Supreme(AP) 36
Other Bars: In acquisition matters, contentions were rejected not on improbability but after evaluating statutory compliance. K. Venkateswarlu VS Union Of India - 2021 Supreme(AP) 237
These cases illustrate: Rejection demands explicit Order VII Rule 11 grounds, like legal bars or non-disclosure of cause, not hunches about success.
In family settlement disputes, courts upheld plaints despite complexity, refusing rejection where cause was disclosed. Rajiv Sanghvi VS Pradip R. Kamdar - 2022 Supreme(Bom) 863
A high threshold exists for truly frivolous claims. Even then, improbability alone falls short—clear non-disclosure or bars are needed. Moonshot claims may proceed to evidence testing.
This analysis draws from cited precedents, offering general insights into Indian civil procedure. Laws evolve, and outcomes depend on facts—consult a qualified lawyer for case-specific advice. This is not legal advice.
#OrderVIIRule11, #PlaintRejection, #CPCIndia
Along with the amendment application, wife filed counter claim. That family Court allowed the application to the extent of amendment of written statement/counter and rejected the relief of counter claim. ... In so far as other the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no cause of action and counter claim can be filed against claim of the plaintiffs only by relying upon the principle laid down in satyendra supra is also not applicable t....
Along with the amendment application, wife filed counter claim. That family Court allowed the application to the extent of amendment of written statement/counter and rejected the relief of counter claim. ... In so far as other the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no cause of action and counter claim can be filed against claim of the plaintiffs only by relying upon the principle laid down in satyendra supra is also not applicable t....
Under these circumstances, the suit valuation is improper and plaintiffs cannot claim the joint possession, as such, the plaintiffs are required to pay necessary Court Fee for the relief of partition of the schedule properties, which comes to Rs.74,526/-. ... 20) The last ground taken by the revision petitioners is that the suit is undervaluing and the plaintiffs not paid proper Court fee for the relief of partition and rendition of accounts and they cannot claim joi....
Under these circumstances, the suit valuation is improper and plaintiffs cannot claim the joint possession, as such, the plaintiffs are required to pay necessary Court Fee for the relief of partition of the schedule properties, which comes to Rs.74,526/-. ... 20) The last ground taken by the revision petitioners is that the suit is undervaluing and the plaintiffs not paid proper Court fee for the relief of partition and rendition of accounts and they cannot claim joi....
Under these circumstances, the suit valuation is improper and plaintiffs cannot claim the joint possession, as such, the plaintiffs are required to pay necessary Court Fee for the relief of partition of the schedule properties, which comes to Rs.74,526/-. ... 20) The last ground taken by the revision petitioners is that the suit is undervaluing and the plaintiffs not paid proper Court fee for the relief of partition and rendition of accounts and they cannot claim joi....
CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that suit does not disclose cause of action and is also barred by limitation and therefore, appeal is also liable to rejected at threshold. ... As stated supra, the plaint does not disclose the cause of action i.e., when the possession of the petitioner has become adverse to the respondents. Thus without hesitation this Court holds that the plaint does not disclose the cause of action and as such it is liable to be rejected.”
For want of evidence, the claim of the respondents 1 and 2 as set out in the plaint or as awarded by the learned trial Judge in the judgment under appeal, should be rejected. ... The learned trial Judge considered these circumstances and basing on the principle of res judicata, the claim of the appellant was rejected. Thus, it was observed that it is not open for the appellant and the 3rd respondent to make any claim in respect of the suit property in the present matt....
Therefore, it can be said that the suit needs adjudication, as such, the plaint cannot be rejected. 16. ... on the plaint averments, the Court has to decide whether the plaint is liable to be rejected. ... plaintiffs to claim the ownership and that all the plots were sold away during the period from 1994 to 2005, thereby, the plaintiffs have no locus standi to seek the reliefs as stated supra. ... As per Order VII Rule 11 (b) of CPC....
Therefore, it can be said that the suit needs adjudication, as such, the plaint cannot be rejected. 16. ... on the plaint averments, the Court has to decide whether the plaint is liable to be rejected. ... plaintiffs to claim the ownership and that all the plots were sold away during the period from 1994 to 2005, thereby, the plaintiffs have no locus standi to seek the reliefs as stated supra. ... As per Order VII Rule 11 (b) of CPC....
Therefore, it can be said that the suit needs adjudication, as such, the plaint cannot be rejected. 16. ... on the plaint averments, the Court has to decide whether the plaint is liable to be rejected. ... plaintiffs to claim the ownership and that all the plots were sold away during the period from 1994 to 2005, thereby, the plaintiffs have no locus standi to seek the reliefs as stated supra. ... As per Order VII Rule 11 (b) of ....
This contention is contrary to the Plaintiffs’ own submissions in the Plaint. The Overview Note had been filed by the Defendants to comply with the order dated 22nd November 2021 passed by the NCLT directing the Defendants to file a synopsis of dates along with the relevant orders. The Plaintiffs cannot fall back of their contention that the Interim Application was moved on the premise of the “Overview Note” dated 1st December 2021 which gave the Plaintiffs a cause of action.
Relying upon Haldiram Bhujiawala (supra) the plaintiffs have contended that, since a plaint cannot be rejected in part and there being other reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs, the plaint cannot be rejected. In the facts of the present case, such a contention cannot be accepted. All reliefs that the plaintiffs have claimed in the plaint emanate out of the contract of partnership dated October 1, 2018.
However, basing on the judicial pronouncements the contention cannot, but be rejected for the reasons elaborated hereinafter. It is no doubt true that the Act is an exproprietory legislation, but as it takes away the rights of the landowners/persons interested in the land proposed to be acquired, the contention of the petitioner’s counsel at the first breath, appears to be correct.
The law court in Abudabi convicted and sentenced Sri.Ninan for the offence for a period of two months, as is proved by Ext.B1 copy of the judgment in the proceedings held on 12.08.2002. That apart, there is improbability in the defence contention that the amount borrowed was only 14,000 Dirhams which is much lesser than the plaint claim. The appellants have contended that after discharge of Ninan's liability, the respondent by misusing one of the cheques in his possession and causing it to be dishonoured for 14,000 Dirhams prosecuted Sri. Ninan before U.A.E. Ministry of Jus....
Though in para 7 of the written statement, the defendant has set out the details which are only subject to getting indemnified by the stevedores as held earlier, when the stevedores are not made as a party in the suit, the question of indemnity does not arise. Hence, the claim of the plaintiffs has to be rejected. Accordingly, issue Nos.4 and 5 are answered against the plaintiffs.
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
