What is Order 7 Rule 11
The civil code from 1908 addresses all non-criminal legal disputes. When filing a civil case in court, the code obliges the court to decide if the suit can proceed. The court has three options after reviewing maintainability:
• Admit the claim,
• Reject the claim,
• Return the claim to the person who filed the lawsuit.
Thus in order for the court to fulfil its duty, we have Order 7 Rule 11, which sets the grounds on which a plaint should be rejected. Before discussing the ground rules, it is pertinent to consider that the filing of a plaint for instituting a suit is sine qua non, and that every court has an obligation to verify the plaint and determine its admissibility.
Distinction between rejection of plaint and return of plaint.
Before moving forward on the key guidelines for dismissing a complaint, it is wise to comprehend the contrast between dismissing a complaint and returning a complaint.
If at any point during the case proceedings the court determines it does not have the legal authority to hear the matter, then as per Order 7 Rule 10 of the civil procedure code, the case shall be sent back or presented to the court with appropriate jurisdiction to try it. In other words, if at any stage of the trial the court realizes that the plaintiff should have filed the case in a different court, then the court will return the complaint to the authorized court that rightly holds the power to hear that case.
Under Order 7 Rule 11, there are several grounds based on which a plaint can be rejected by the court.
Rejection of Plaint
Section 7 Regulation 11 of the Civil Process Code clarifies the dismissal of complaints in specific situations. It has stated some grounds on which courts decline complaints. One of these is failing to state the cause for legal action that the plaintiff demands against the defendant.
The court must decide whether to accept or reject the complaint under Order VII before requesting a written response from the defendant. Furthermore, if there is an application questioning the suit, the defendant cannot be compelled to file a reply until a ruling is made on that issue. Additionally, this rule may be invoked at any stage of the legal process. In a case that came before the Calcutta High Court, Selina Sheehan v. Hafez Mohammad Fateh Nashib, the complaint was dismissed even after it had been registered and assigned a case number, initiating the lawsuit.
The court must carefully analyse the complaint and determine whether to allow the case to proceed or send it back with requests for changes. However, there are some situations where the court will reject the complaint. The complaint will be dismissed if:
1. The cause of action is not mentioned [Order VII Rule 11(a)]
While the phrase "cause of action" has been referenced in several places in the CPC for example Order II Rule 2, it is not clearly defined in the Code itself. According to Collins Dictionary, a cause of action refers to "the key facts outlined in a complaint, which form the basis for a plaintiff's right to seek legal relief from a court." In other words, a cause of action can be thought of as the specific circumstances that entitle someone to take legal action against someone who has caused them harm. As such, whenever someone violates another's rights, it creates grounds for legal action where the harmed individual can request remedy from the courts. This is where Rule 11(a) takes effect. A case can be dismissed by the court if the plaintiff does not indicate a legal basis for their claim against the defendant. This is seen as misusing the court's procedures. The legal basis has been cited in several sections of the Code of Civil Procedure. Without indicating a legal basis, a civil lawsuit cannot proceed.
Various claims that a plaintiff has against a defendant, or multiple defendants together can be combined into a single lawsuit (Rule 2 of Order II in the Code of Civil Procedure). The plaintiff is allowed to join multiple causes of action against one or more defendants in one proceeding to streamline the legal process. This procedural mechanism permits comprehensive and efficient resolution of interrelated disputes in a single trial.
Any individuals pursuing legal remedy for similar circumstances and causes may join together in one lawsuit. However, if combining different lawsuits complicates or delays the trial process, the court may decide to hold separate individual trials instead (Order II Rule 6 of the Code).
Rule 4 of Order II in the code outlines the circumstances in which causes of action will not be joined together unless permitted by the Court. It specifies that distinct claims arising from different transactions should not be asserted jointly unless the Court permits their unification. This ensures that each legal issue or dispute is addressed with proper focus and prevent overlapping or commingling of distinct matters, which could potentially complicate legal proceedings. The Court may however use its discretion to permit the case.
2. The relief that is claimed in the plaint is deemed to be undervalued [(Order VII Rule 11(b)]
According to Order VII Rule 11(b), the court can refuse the plaintiff's claim if the asked for compensation isn't enough. It's vital to correct such a claim within the time limit set by the Court. If not corrected, it's like the lawsuit is thrown out. An updated claim can be submitted, following Order 7 Rule 13 of the Code.
The relief specifics must be mentioned in the plaint according to Rule 7, Order VII of the CPC. The plaint should specify what the plaintiff seeks. The possibilities are wideranging damages, an injunction, a declaration, appointment of a receiver, and others. If a plaintiff overlooks a possible relief (unless the Court permits this), he can't request for it later. At times, the court provides relief based on different grounds than the ones put forth in the plaint. The relief demanded by the plaintiff or the defense can be generalized or alternative.
3. Relief has been stated in the plaint clearly but the paper on which the plaint is written is not properly stamped [Order VII Rule 11(c)]
The Indian Stamp Act of 1899 outlines guidelines to ensure lawsuits are properly stamped. Rule 11(c) also aims to protect state interests by allowing improperly stamped lawsuits to be rejected. Like undervalued lawsuits, courts may grant plaintiffs extra time under this rule to correct errors in insufficient stamping. The goal is to address mistakes while still upholding compliance with stamping procedures.
Furthermore, according to Order VII Rule 11(c), a plaint is rejected by the court if it has been written on paper that has not been properly stamped and authorized. If the person is unable to make up for the deficiency, they can apply as an indigent person to continue the suit. An order under this rule for rejecting a plaint must only be given after the plaintiff has been given a reasonable amount of time to rectify the situation.
In a case before the Calcutta High Court, Midnapore Zamindary Co. v. Secretary of State, the judges had asked the plaintiff to refile their claim on stamped paper as required, but the plaintiff failed to do so. The Court ruled that the plaintiff would not be given permission to change their claim and were told to pay additional court fees. Their original claim was also denied.
4. If the suit is barred by any statute [Order VII Rule 11(d)]
According to Order VII Rule 11(d) of the legal code, a case filing will be rejected if the lawsuit is prohibited due to the statute of limitations expiring.
If a legal claim has passed the statute of limitations deadline, the details of that claim can be modified during the hearing. The court is responsible for determining whether key details were omitted or if any laws would prevent the claim.
When the plaintiff can demonstrate that the lawsuit was filed within the statute of limitations timeframe, the provisions of this order will not apply. Determining whether the statute of limitations has expired involves analysing applicable laws and the specific facts of the case.
5. If the plaint is not filed in duplicate [Order 7 Rule 11(e)]
Rule 11(e) of Order VII states that two copies - the original and a duplicate - of the plaint must be submitted when filing a lawsuit. The plant will be rejected if the plaintiff does not provide both copies. Order 4 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure also discusses this requirement. If the specified process is not followed, the court has the authority to deny the plaint.
6. If the plaint does not comply with Order 7 Rule 9
Rule 9 states: Plaintiffs must attach a document list (if any) to their plaint. If admitted, these must get produced within court set time. Plaintiffs supply plain paper plaint copies, one per defendant, unless permitted otherwise. They also pay summons service fees for defendants within the court's deadline. Order VII Rule 11(f) says if plaintiff doesn't follow Rule 9, plaint can be rejected. Rule 9 lays out steps after plaint is admitted. Plaintiff must attach document list, copies as court wants.
Process for denying a complaint.
Order VII Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Code outlines the steps after refusing a complaint. The Judge must issue an order explaining the reasons. This language is required. Without an order, the complaint remains on court record.
Plaintiffs cannot dismiss complaints without explanation. The court must formally reject with justification.
Deadline to request complaint rejection.
Defendants must apply to reject a complaint before trial starts. Once proceedings begin, this option closes. Order 7 rule 11 Locus Standi
For filing a suit, the plaintiff needs to have a locus standi. He/she needs to show that some legal right of the person has been violated. Such violation should also result in some injury caused to the person. If no legal right has been violated, the person will not have a locus standi for filing a suit. It is basically the ability of the party to show the Court that there was a sufficient cause of action behind the filing of the suit. Under Order VII Rule 11, the locus standi of the suit depends upon whether any grounds were violated which resulted in rejection of the plaint.
Dismissal of the suit v. Rejection of the plaint
The difference between the dismissal of suit and rejection of plaint is that there no specific grounds on which a suit can be dismissed. If the summons has not been duly served upon the defendant, the suit is liable to be dismissed. Another ground is that if neither party appears on the day of hearing, then the Court can make an order dismissing the suit. Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure states certain grounds on the basis of which a suit can be dismissed.
On the other hand, rejection of plaint occurs only under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. The plaint is rejected on the grounds which have been mentioned under the said Order.
Some crucial pointers to note on Order 7 Rule 11
Order 7 Rule 11 is mandatory power of the court, not optional.
In the legal proceedings of Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanushali (as mentioned earlier), the esteemed Supreme Court firmly asserted that a "must" be a dismissal of the plaintiff's pleadings if any reasons highlighted in sections (a) to (e) are substantiated. If the court finds evidence that the plaint does not articulate an appropriate cause of action or if it violates any law, it leaves the court with no variation but to reject the plaint. The instructions under the banner of Order 7 Rule 11 aren't discretionary, they come as obligatory. Therefore, if the plaint contradicts any stipulations enumerated under Rule 11, as delineated in the prior sections, then the court is obligated to dismiss it without any resistance.
Can a plaint be rejected by taking reference to the written statement.
When Kamala & Ors. took on KT Eshwara in a 2008 case, the Supreme Court, headed by two justices, stated that decisions around lawsuit dismissals should be informed by the allegations presented in the lawsuit. The justices concurred that the application of this method will effectively trigger clause (d) of Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, and no form of tampering or changes should be made within it. In the case of Saleem Bhai against the State of Maharashtra (2002), the Supreme Court expressed that, when evaluating Order 7 Rule 11, attention must be paid to the declarations in the plaint, and the trial court possesses the discretion to apply the same at any phase of the lawsuit.
The judiciary also determined that the contentions in the written complaint clearly lack reasonability. The onus is on the Court to meticulously assess the complaints/assertions in the lawsuit. Simply put, the court should consider the assertions embedded in the lawsuit when deciding its rejection or acceptance. At this juncture, the defendant's pleas bear no significance. The case should solely be adjudicated based on the plaintiff's assertions.
In reference to the noteworthy case of Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamath and Ors. (2021), while addressing the matter of "res judicata as a basis for dismissing a suit", the Supreme Court affirmed that the defendants' rationale should not influence the evaluation of whether a suit is legally barred or not. Therefore, only the contentions in the lawsuit should be given attention.
In the most recent legal dispute in 2022, aptly referred to as Biswanath Baik v. Sulanga Bose, a decisive conclusion was drawn by the Supreme Court: it is crucial to evaluate and comprehend the allegations mentioned in the plaint in its entirety. In drawing inspiration from the judgement passed in the case Ram Prakash Gupta v. Rajiv Kumar Gupta, it was clearly elucidated by the Court that examining only a select few lines or fragments of the plaint for Order 7 Rule 11 dismissal, without acknowledging other crucial elements contained within the plaint, is distinctly discouraged and deemed unacceptable.
When dismissing the complaint.
In line with Order VII Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Code, guidelines are put forth to be followed after a complaint is dismissed. These directives stipulate that the judge should record the grounds for his/her decision while also passing an order.
The terms laid out in the Code are obligatory and even in the absence of an order, the complaint will continue to be part of the court's records. Such a notion was affirmed by the Court in the case. P. Parukutty Amma and Anr. vs K.M. Ramanunni Nair and Ors. (1966)
Time Extension
The power to lengthen the deadline for applications, in line with Order 7 Rule 11 clauses (b) and (c) of the CPC, rests with the judiciary's sound judgment. This measure exists to confirm that the applicable court fees for instigating the lawsuit have been adequately paid. Section 148 of the CPC grants the court the authority to augment the time for performing an operation which is directed or permitted by the Code.
Declination of pleas and intermingled issues of legal and factual nature.
This aspect is another critical element to ponder about while studying Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Much of the legal philosophy surrounding Order 7 Rule 11 spin around Rule 11(d), which contains sections relevant to the declination of a plea in scenarios where the plea is legally restricted. However, under conditions where the outcome of the legal restriction is an intermingled issue of legal and factual nature, the court does not mandate the decline of a plea. The rationale for such a course of action is uncomplicated; as an intermingled matter of law and fact can't be determined solely on a plea, and it demands proper evaluation of the evidence by the court, therefore, pleas are not discarded / denied in such instances.
The court, as mentioned, only examines the plaint's statements to reject or not reject it. The two prime examples involving law and fact are res judicata's bar and limitation's bar. Let's explore key cases about this element.
Res judicata and limitation are the most renowned mixed law fact scenarios. The court must solely consider plaint averments to decide plaint rejection. In the recent day scenario of Srihari Hanuman Das Totala v. Hemanth Vithal Kamat & Others. (2021), the Court tackled the question if res judicata can be a reason for dismissal of a plaint or not. The judgment was that to answer this question, the four points are crucial:
1. The earlier suit is concluded.
2. The issues in the subsequent suit were majorly and directly litigated in the prior suit. The previous suit was among the same parties or parties from whom the relief is sought and thus is the process of litigation, under the same title, and that,
3. These issues were adjudicated and finally decided by a court that was qualified to try this suit.
In this instance, the court bench deduced that the plea for res judicata necessarily feels the need to scrutinize the claims, matters, and results of preceding lawsuits. Hence, such a plea might exceed the bounds of Order 7 Rule 11 (d), in which only the assertions in the complaint would need adherence.
Furthermore, the established case of Smt. Sita Shripad Narvekar and ors. v. Auduth Timblo (2015), had a declaration from the Bombay High Court. It articulated that for making a determination about the application of Order 7 Rule 11 (d), the contentions in the lawsuit must be examined without any addition or removal of any sort.
As res judicata entails a blended question of legal and factual aspects, the court is required to dissect it based on the proof presented by the concerned parties, related to the merit of the claim.
In a recent instance, the case of Saranpal Kaur Anand v. Praduman Singh Chandhok (2022), two Supreme Court judges had differing views. They were debating if the legal complaint in the case should be dismissed due to a deadline issue. Justice Sanjiv Khanna believed that the complaint showed that the case had passed its deadline. On the other hand, Justice Bela Trivedi thought that this deadline issue was both a legal and factual question. Therefore, she felt it required a trial.
Rejection of plaint as a decree
The above text points out that a lawsuit is effectively ended when the complaint is rejected, as per Section 2(2) of the CPC. Yet, this action can be challenged under Section 96 of the Code. What's more, the plaintiff has the right to file a new lawsuit based on the same reasons, even if the previous complaint was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11. To put it plainly, even if the complaint is nixed, it doesn't stop the plaintiff from launching a fresh lawsuit against the same issue.
Is it possible for a court to grant an order extending time?
Yes, the court has authority to give more time to make changes needed instead of rejecting a plaint if not doing so would cause injustice. This can happen in these two cases:
1. When there is under valuation of the relief claimed, and within the court's set time, the plaintiff doesn't modify the valuation.
2. When the relief claimed value is correct, but the plaint is on inadequately stamped paper, and within the court's set time, the plaintiff doesn't provide the required stamp paper.
Can an order for alteration of the plaint be granted by the court?
A key legal issue is whether courts can allow a plaintiff to modify their claim under Order 6 Rule 17, to avoid dismissal. This matter has sparked legal debate, leading to conflicting rulings by higher courts. To resolve this, the Supreme Court ruled in Sayyed Ayaz v. Prakash G Goyal (2021) that no changes can be ordered where the claim would otherwise be dismissed under Rule 11(d). This decision stems from Rule 11 being mandatory, not optional. Thus, in such cases, the court has no authority to reject the plaint and the only alternative is to reject the plaint if it is barred by law or does not disclose any cause of action.
Abuse of process of law and re-litigation.
A common form of court process misuse is re-litigation. This practice of a party retrying an issue that's already been juridically examined, resolved, and dismissed is not just disrespectful to the court, but also contradicts justice and public policy. The court holds the authority to haltsmiss cases or complaints that are trivial, pointless, or just aim to eat up judicial time. Indeed, dismissing such a case is ultimately up to the court and must be done with heed. This power should be put into action only in unique instances, and the court should be assured that there's no possibility of a case proceeding. This principle was upheld in the case of M. Somasundaram and Anr v. V. Srinivasan (2009).
In a different situation, namely N. Babu v. Shanmugam (2013) the Court stated that when it comes to re-litigation, the court ought to reject the claim as soon as possible. It went on to say that the filing of a subsequent lawsuit clearly misuses the court's procedures.
This type of conduct mustn't receive support from the judiciary. In another instance, K. K. Modi v. K. N. Modi (1998), the Court asserted that the judiciary possesses the authority to end vexatious proceedings if it becomes clear that they are a wilful misuse of the court's processes.
On the topic of Palanisamy Gounder v. Sankar Ramanathan and ors. (1993), the judgement revealed that it's crucial for the court to sieve out and discard any frivolous and vexatious suits that could potentially obstruct a decree holder's pursuit of justice.
Let's talk about dismissal vs. rejection in a suit.
The concept differs when we look at dismissal of a suit and the rejection of a plaint. Here’s why there’s no specific list to tell us when we can dismiss a suit. So, when can a suit be dismissed? If the summons wasn't sent to the defendant properly, that's one reason. Another reason is the no show of both parties at the hearing. In this instance, the court has the right to dismiss the suit. The Code of Civil Procedure’s Order IX gives us some reasons when a suit could be dismissed.
Now, rejection of a plaint only happens because of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code. This Code informs us of the reasons behind a plaint's rejection.
Landmark cases on the rejection of the plaint
Kalepu Pala Subrahmanyam vs Tiguti Venkata (1970)
In this case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that a complaint can't be thrown out in segments. They decreed that the entire complaint must be discarded in entirety.
Bibhas Mohan Mukherjee vs. Hari Charan Banerje (1960)
This time, the Calcutta High Court declared that any order to reject a complaint is, indeed, a decree. Anyone can challenge the decree in an appeal.
K. Roja v. U.S. Rayu & Anr. (1960)
As adjudicated in Roja v. U.S. Rayu & Anr. (1960) by the respected High Court, a suit dismissal plea is permissible at all stages. Prior to commencing trial, the Court must wrap up such plea.
The Case of Sopan Sukhdeo Sable Against Astt. Charity Commr (2004)
In the hearing of Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Astt. Charity Commr. (2004) an additional plea was lodged midway through the evidence collection phase of the lawsuit. This plea, intended to postpone the proceedings, was considered denied.
The case of Kuldeep Singh Patania versus Bikram Singh Jarya (2017)
According to Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Civil Procedure Code, only the plaintiff's pleadings are examined. The written statement and any assertions are not taken into account in an investigation under this order. This conclusion was drawn in the case of Kuldeep Singh Pathania vs. Bikram Singh Jarya (2017) -
Recommendations
1. We have seen how missing details in Order 7 Rule 11 can waste court time and resources. Not just for the courts, but for the parties involved too. We suggest an amendment. The rule hasn't been updated since 2002 when sub-clauses (f) and (g) were replaced with the current sub-clause (f). But this change hasn't streamlined court time or stopped fake lawsuits.
2. The analysis above implies that nowhere in Order 7 Rule 11 does it mention when to reject the pleading. This rule's interpretation by the Supreme Court suggests that the Trial Court has the power to dismiss a pleading at any point. This flexibility could trigger dilemmas, potentially wasting both court's time and the involved parties' resources.
Our legislature must amend Order 7 Rule 11. It should clearly state the grounds for rejecting a plaint. For instance, whether the suit is time-barred or lacks a cause of action. Courts should focus on these grounds before admitting plaints. This helps save time and resources of Courts and parties. The grounds for rejection must be determined at early stages. This is crucial and requires greater significance.
It's crucial to reme¬mber key aspects of Orde¬r 7 Rule 11: dismissal of suit. The court cannot reje¬ct parts, it must dismiss the entire case¬ or none at all. If filed with ill intent to de¬lay proceedings, the court can re¬ject the suit. An order re¬jecting a suit is legally a decre¬e, so it can be appeale¬d.
1. The plaint cannot be rejected in parts, i.e., it has to be either rejected as a whole or not at all.
2. When a suit is filed with mala fide intent to cause a delay in the proceeding, the court has the power to reject it.
3. The order which is rejected is a decree by a court and hence, it is appealable.
Conclusion
The Code of Civil Procedure covers procedures for civil courts. It's a thorough law. The plaint begins a court case. Draft it meticulously. Include all Order VII details.
Furthermore, rejecting plaints under Order 7 Rule 11 safeguards courts' precious time. It protects innocent respondents from prolonged legal struggles too.