DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

VISAKHAPATNAM

PROJECT:
RETURN AND
REJECTION
OF
PLAINT

table of Contents

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

LIST OF CASES........................................................ 3
ABBREVIATIONS................................................... 4
ABSTRACT............................................................... 5
RETURN OF PLAINT.............................................. 6
TO A LOWER COURT..............................................8
CONTINUATION OF A SUIT..................................9
AT ANY STAGE OF THE SUIT............................11
ENDORSEMENTS TO BE MADE BY JUDGE
WHILE RETURNING A PLAINT...........................13
9. REJECTION OF PLAINT......................................... 15
10. IN TOTO.................................................................... 18
11. BIBLIOGRAPHY..................................................... 23

LIST OF CASES

R.S.D.V. Finance Company Private Limited v. Shree Vallabh Glass Works

Limited, AIR 1993 SC 2094.

Amar Chand v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 313.

Hanamanthappa v. Chandrashekarappa, (1997) 9 SCC 688.

Madhub v. Jotindra Tagore, 5 Cal LJ 580 cf Mulla 1916.

Narayan Nair v. Cheria Kadhiri, 41 Mad 721 cf Mulla 1916.

Tarakanta Das v. Kali Prasad, AIR 1919 Cal. 447.

Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra

Samar Singh v. Kedar Nath AIR 1987 SC 1926.

Kalepu Pala Subrahmanyam v. Tiguti Venkatta Peddiraju, AIR 1971 AP 313.

Meenakshisundaram Chettiar v. Venkatachalam Chettiar, (1980) 1 SCC 616

: AIR 1979 SC 989.
2

Tej Kiran v. Sanjiva Reddy, AIR 1970 SC 1573.

T.Arivadandam v. Satyapal, AIR 1977 SC 2421.

Bibhas Mohan Mukherjee v. Hari Charan Banerjee, AIR 1961 Cal. 491.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
A.I.R All India Reporter.
A.P. Andhra Pradesh.
Cal. Calcutta.
Cal LJ Calcutta Law Journal.
CPC Civil Procedure Code.
O. Order.
R. Rule.
Rs. Rupees.
S. Section.
SC Supreme Court.
SCC Supreme Court Cases.
3

SCR Supreme Court Review.

v. Versus.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Aims and Objectives
1)

What are Requirements of plaint?

2)

What circumstances the plaint will be returned?

3)

What circumstances the plaint will be rejected?

4)
To compare the remedies to the aggrieved parties in the above
circumstances.
Scope and Limitations
The circumstances and procedure for both returning a plaint and rejecting a
plaint shall be dealt with. It seeks to compare and contradict the same with
special emphasis on the remedies available to an aggrieved party.
Mode of Citation
A uniform mode of citation is used as follows:
Author, Name of the Book, (Editor, Edition, Volume No., Place of Publication:
Publisher, Year of Publication), Page no.
Author, Name of Article, <URL>, (date of visit).
Method of Writing
A descriptive and comparative form of writing has been used.
4

Research Questions
1)
What are the necessary constituents of a plaint?
2)

When would a plaint be returned by the court?

3)

Under what circumstances the plaint is rejected by the court?

4)

What are the remedies to the aggrieved party in both the above cases?

Sources of Data
An exhaustive research was done using primary sources like case law as well as
secondary sources from books. An attempt has been made to use primary
sources wherever possible, but if primary sources are unavailable then
authoritative secondary sources have been used. A comprehensive bibliography
is provided at the end of the project.
RETURN OF PLAINT
Where at any stage of the suit, the court finds that it has no jurisdiction,
either territorial or pecuniary or with regard to the subject matter of the suit, it
will return the plaint to be presented to the proper court in which the suit ought
to have been filed.1 Rule 10-A lays down the procedure to be followed by the
court before the plaint is ordered to be returned to be presented to the proper
court.2 It has been inserted to obviate the necessity of serving the summons on
the defendants in the suit. An appellate court can also return the plaint to be
presented to the proper court. 3
Order 7 Rule 10 reads as follows:
(1) [Subject to the provisions of rule 10A, the plaint shall] at any stage of the suit be
returned to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted.
[Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that a Court of appeal
or revision may direct, after setting aside the decree passed in a suit, the return of the
plaint under this sub-rule.]

When the plaint is filed in the proper court after getting back from the
wrong court, it cannot be said to be continuation of the suit. Suit must be
deemed to be presented when it is filed in proper court. The order returning the
plaint is appealable.
1

R.10(1).
C.K Thakwani, Civil Procedure, (5th Edition, Lucknow: Eastern Book Company, 2004), P. 164.
3
R.10B.
2

Where at any stage of the suit the court finds that it has no territorial
jurisdiction, failure to return plaint for lack of territorial jurisdiction will not result
in the decree of the court in that case being void. Conversely, failure to return
plaint for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction will not result in the decree of the court in
that case being void. Equally even with regard to subject matter, the failure to
return the plaint when a court does not have subject matter jurisdiction will
result in the decree passed by that court in that suit being void and a nullity.
The Judge shall on returning the plaint endorses thereon the:
(i)

date of presentation;

(ii)

the name of the party presenting it; and

(iii)

a brief statement of the reasons for returning it. 4

It is now relevant to look at the decision in the case of R.S.D.V. Finance Company
Private Limited v. Shree Vallabh Glass Works Limited.5
Facts:
In this case, the appellant filed a summary suit against the respondent in the original civil
jurisdiction of the High Court. The plaintiff had deposited a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- @ 19%
per annum for 90 days through a cheque with the defendant. On the date of maturity, the
defendant failed to pay and requested the plaintiff to continue the deposit by giving 5 post
dated cheques of Rs. 2,00,000/- each and a cheque of Rs. 22,288.32 for interest. The 5
cheques were dishonoured for insufficient funds. The plaintiff in these circumstances filed a
summary suit against the defendant for Rs. 10,00,000/- as principal and interest at 19% per
annum with 90 days rests.
Findings of High Court:
A single judge of the High Court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, causing the defendant to
appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court which held that in the circumstances of the
case, this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. A prayer made on behalf of
the plaintiff seeking to amend the plaint was also rejected. The Division Bench allowed the
appeal and dismissed the suit.
Findings of Supreme Court:
4
5

R.10(2).
AIR 1993 SC 2094.

Subsequently the case was brought before the Supreme Court on appeal by the plaintiff. The
Apex Court held that the entire reading of the plaint clearly showed that the suit was based
not only on the basis of deposit receipts of Rupees 10 lakhs but also on the basis of five postdated cheques. It held that the Division Bench was totally wrong in passing order of dismissal
of the suit itself when it had arrived to the conclusion that Bombay Court had no jurisdiction
to try the suit. The only course to be adopted in such a situation was to return the plaint for
presentation to the proper court and not to dismiss the suit.
Thus if a court finds at any stage during the suit that it does not have jurisdiction, it is
bound to return the plaint for presentation in the proper forum and cannot simply dismiss the
suit.
In case of inaccurate valuation, if it is found on proper valuation that the suit is
beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court, the plaint is to be returned but not rejected.6
RETURN OF PLAINT TO A LOWER COURT:
In a situation where the Court has jurisdiction, but is not the Court of lowest
grade competent to try it, the plaint should be returned under O.7, R.10. The logic behind this
is that, if such suits are entertained then there will be overcrowding of the Courts of higher
grade with such suits and it is the object of the legislation to prevent the same. It should
however be noted that this rule does not compel a Court of a higher grade to return a plaint to
be presented to a Court of a lower grade in every instance irrespective of the circumstances of
the case.
It does however grant discretion to the higher court to be exercised in accordance with
legal principles with respect to the facts of each individual case in the interests of justice.
Where in such a case the evidence has been gone into and concluded, and the objection is
raised at the time of arguments, the Court should instead of returning the plaint proceed to
decide the case.7
The plaint can be returned under O 7, R.10, for the purpose of presentation of the
same to the court in which it should have been instituted. If however the suit, cannot be

Sudipto Sarkar & V.R Manohar, Sarkars Code of Civil Procedure, (10th Edition, Volume 1, Nagpur: Wadhwa
& Co., 2002), P. 993.
7
Chitaley P. 64.

instituted in any civil court then this rule will not have any effect and the suit will have to be
dismissed.8
It is clear from the section that if a suit is filed in Revenue Court which should be
tried in a Civil Court then the court should not dismiss the suit but rather return the plaint so
that it may be filed in the appropriate forum i.e. the Civil Court. Similarly, the opposite would
also hold true i.e. if a plaint is filed in a Civil Court which should have been filed in Revenue
Court, the court should return the plaint so it may be filed in the Revenue Court.
If a suit is instituted where in the plaint it is alleged that the defendant is a trespasser
and the court found that he was actually a tenant then the plaint should not be returned to be
presented to the Revenue Court that had exclusive jurisdiction over the matter, but that the
suit should be dismissed.9
CONTINUATION OF A SUIT:
O.7, R.10 is silent on whether when a plaint upon being returned is filed in the proper
court it should be treated as a continuation of the old suit or as a new one. The above was
decided upon by the Supreme Court in the case of Amar Chand v. Union of India.10 The
plaintiff was travelling by train. It collided and as a result he sustained serious injuries. He
filed a suit claiming damages under several heads. The Trial Court found that the claim for
damages was well founded to the extent of Rs. 33,503.00, but dismissed the suit on the
ground that it was barred by limitation. The High Court, on appeal by the plaintiff, confirmed
the finding of the Trial Court that the suit was barred by limitation and dismissed the appeal.
The main question, in the appeal, was whether the suit was filed within the period of
limitation. Article 22 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, is applicable. It provides for a period
of one year for a suit for compensation for injury to the person from the date when the injury
was committed. The plaintiff issued a notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code
before filing the suit. The suit was filed in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge of
Karnal, hereinafter called the Karnal Court. For ministerial purposes, the suit was
subsequently transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Panipat, hereinafter referred
to as the Panipat Court, which returned the plaint for presentation to the proper court. On
8

D.V Chitaley, The Code of Civil Procedure, (9th Edition, Nagpur: All India
Reporter Pvt. Ltd, 1977) P. 51.
9
Solil Paul & Anupam Srivastava, Mullas The Code of Civil Procedure,
(16th Edition, Vol. 2, New Delhi: Butterworths, 2002), p.1911.
10

AIR 1973 SC 313.

the basis of its finding that where the injury was committed was not situated within territorial
jurisdiction of the Court. The plaint was thereafter presented in the Court of the Senior
Subordinate Judge, Ambala.
The counsel for the appellant argued that the suit instituted in the trial Court by the
presentation of plaint after it was returned for presentation to the proper court was a
continuation of the suit filed in the Karnal Court and, therefore the suit filed in the Karnal
Court must be deemed to have been filed in the Trial Court.
The Court however, held that when the plaint is returned for presentation to the proper
Court and is presented in that Court, the suit can be deemed to be instituted in the proper
Court only when the plaint was presented in that Court. Thus the Court held that the on return
of plaint when the plaint is filed in the proper forum it will not be regarded as a continuation
of the old suit and hence the suit instituted in the Trial Court upon the return of the plaint by
the Panipat Court could not be treated as a continuation of the suit filed in the Karnal Court.
SUPREME COURT RULING ON CONTINUATION OF A SUIT:
The Supreme Court further held in the case of Hanamanthappa v. Chandrashekar
appa11 that such a plaint (i.e. one which has been returned and then filed in the court which
has jurisdiction) would be treated as a fresh plaint subject to limitation, pecuniary jurisdiction
and payment of court fees and hence no permission would be required from any of the courts
involved to amend a plaint upon its return.
Facts:
The respondents filed a suit in the Court of District Munsiff, Navalagund. On grounds
of lack of territorial jurisdiction it was returned for presentation to the proper Court.
Accordingly, after making necessary amendment to the plaint the respondents represented the
suit in Civil Court at Dharwad. The petitioners filed an application for dismissal of the
petition on the ground that the plaint was materially altered, without seeking permission for
amendment of the plaint as required under Order VI, Rule 17 of C. P. C.
The High Court dismissed the petition. The court held that the object of Order VII,
Rule 10 is that the plaintiff, on return of the plaint, can either challenge in an appellate forum
or represent to the Court having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In substance, it is
a suit filed afresh subject to the limitation, pecuniary jurisdiction and payment of the Court
11

(1997) 9 SCC 688.

fee as had rightly been pointed out by the High Court. Therefore, it cannot be dismissed on
the ground that the plaintiff made averments which did not find place in the original plaint
presented before the Court of District Munsiff, Navalgund.
The date of representation is the date of institution for the purpose of limitation,
though the plaintiff can have recourse to S. 1412 of the Limitation Act for excluding the period
during which the proceedings were pending in the original court. The court-fee payable on
the plaint is what is payable under the law in force at the time of representation. 13 The
plaintiff will be entitled to the benefit of the court fee paid in the original court but this can
only be when the same plaint is represented. Where after return of the plaint, it is
substantially altered such that it is not substantially the original plaint filed then a fresh court
fee will have to be paid.14
THE USAGE OF PHRASE AT ANY STAGE OF THE SUIT:
O.7, R.10 uses the phrase at any stage of the suit. This would cover any stage of the
suit beginning with the filing of the plaint till the judgment is given. This would also include
a stage prior to the filing of the written statement. It should be pointed out here that no court
can blindly accept any plaint without prima facie satisfaction of its jurisdiction to entertain
the matter. If a claim is overvalued and the fact appears on the face of the plaint, it is the duty
of the court to return the plaint to the plaintiff.15
An appeal would lie from any order made under O.7, R.10 under Section 104 as
provided for in O.43, R.1 of the CPC. Thus an appeal would lie from an order returning the
plaint made by the court of first instance or by the first appellate court under Section 107 of
the CPC but there exist no right to a second appeal from the order of the first appellate
court.16
There is however one major complexity in this regard. For instance, where A files a
plaint in the Munsifs court, the Munsif returns the plaint for presentation to the proper court,
holding that the suit is beyond his pecuniary jurisdiction. On the plaint being presented to the
subordinate court, it is once again returned on the ground that the Munsifs court had
jurisdiction. Now the question arises whether A is entitled to appeal to the District Court from

12

Section.14 Exclusion of time of proceeding bonafide in court without jurisdiction

Mulla p.1912
14
Sarkar p. 993.
15
Mulla p.1913.
16
Sarkar p.996.
13

10

the order of the Munsif having regard to the fact that he is in obedience with the order filed in
the plaint at the Subordinate Judges Court.
RIGHT TO APPEAL:
To one side from what was held in Hanamanthappa case, in Beni Madhub v. Jotindra
Tagore,

17

(the question was answered in the negative by the Calcutta High Court) on the

ground that the party had, by electing to file a plaint in the Subordinate Court, forfeited his
right of appeal under O.43 R.1 of the CPC. The question was considered by the Madras High
Court in Narayan Nair v. Cheria Kadhiri 18 and it was held that the right of appeal conferred
by O.43, R.1 of the CPC, could not be lost by reason of the order having been complied with.
The Calcutta High Court has subsequently held in the case of Tarakanta Das v. Kali
Prasad19 that if a party reserves the right to appeal against the order then the right is not lost.
The facts:
The plaintiffs filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Barisal for a
declaration of their zamindari right to some land and they valued the suit at Rs. 5,100. The
defendants urged that the valuation was excessive and that the true value was not more than
Rs. 1,000. The Subordinate Judge went into this question and found that the value of the suit
was Rs. 1,385. Since there was a Munsif Court in Barisal empowered to try suits upto Rs.
2,000, the Subordinate Judge returned the plaint to be filed in the Munsifs Court. The plaintiff
amended the plaint accordingly and filed it in the Munsifs court but with the following
written on the plaint : Amended under Courts order, but without giving up the right of
appeal and re-filed today without giving up the right to appeal
The Calcutta High Court distinguished this case from that of Beni Madhub v. Jotindra
Tagore on the basis that in this case the plaintiffs had declared that they were going to appeal.
The Court went on to hold that the action of filing the plaint in the Munsifs Court did not take
away the partys right to appeal.
The right to appeal should under no circumstances be lost even if a party proceeds in
accordance with the order of a court without reserving the right to appeal. The only
circumstance under which the party would lose his right to appeal would be if the procedure
laid out in O.7, R.10A is followed.
17

5 Cal LJ 580 cf Mulla 1916.

18

41 Mad 721 cf Mulla 1916.

19
AIR 1919 Cal. 447.

11

Sub Rule 2 of O.7, R.10 of the CPC basically lays down that certain endorsements are
to be made by the judge returning the plaint. The absence of this would only amount to an
irregularity.20 It would not make the order for return incomplete or ineffective.
The Judge shall on returning the plaint endorses thereon the:
(i)

date of presentation;

(ii)

the name of the party presenting it; and

(iii)

a brief statement of the reasons for returning it. 21

ENDORSMENTS TO BE MADE BY A JUDGE WHILE RETURNING A PLAINT:

O.7 R.10A reads as follows
Power of Court to fix a date of appearance in the Court where plaint is to be filed after its
return.
(1) Where, in any suit, after the defendant has appeared, the Court is of opinion that
the plaint should be returned, it shall, before doing so, intimate its decision to the
plaintiff.
(2) Where an intimation is given to the plaintiff under sub-rule (1), the plaintiff may
make an application to the Court
(a) specifying the Court in which he proposes to present the plaint after its
return,
(b) praying that the Court may fix a date for the appearance of the parties in
the said Court, and
(c) requesting that the notice of the date so fixed may be given to him and to
the defendant.
(3) Where an application is made by the plaintiff under sub-rule (2), the Court shall,
before returning the plaint and notwithstanding that the order for return of plaint was
made by it on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to try the suit,
(a) fix a date for the appearance of the parties in the Court in which the
plaint is proposed to the presented, and
(b) give to the plaintiff and to the defendant notice of such date for
appearance.
(4) Where the notice of the date for appearance is given under sub-rule (3),
(a) it shall not be necessary for the Court in which the plaint is presented
after its return, to serve
the defendant with a summons for appearance in the suit, unless that Court,
for reasons to be recorded, otherwise directs, and
(b) the said notice shall be deemed to be a summons for the appearance of
the defendant in the court in which the plaint is presented on the date so
fixed by the Court by which the plaint was returned.
(5) Where the application made by the plaintiff under sub-rule (2) is allowed by the
Court, the plaintiff shall not be entitled to appeal against the order returning the
plaint.

20
21

M.P Jain, The Code of Civil Procedure, (1st Edition, Nagpur: Wadhwa & Co., 2004), P. 552.
R.10(2).

12

If after the defendant has appeared, the court is of the view that it has no
jurisdiction and should, therefore return the plaint, it must give intimation of such
decision to the plaintiff. The plaintiff thereupon, may make an application as
described under sub-rule (2). The may in sub-rule (2) shows that it is in his
discretion to make or not make an application. It is not incumbent on him to do
so.
If however the plaintiff does make the application and follows the procedure laid
down, the court shall fix the date of appearance of the parties in the court in
which the plain is to be presented and give notice of such date to the parties.
Since the defendant by such notice is made aware of the suit against him and
the date when he has to appear, the notice is treated as a summons. As the
plaintiff chooses the procedure laid down in sub-rule (2) and obtains an order, he
naturally can have no right of appeal against the order returning the plaint
Application by him under sub-rule (2) is treated as acceptance of the order of
return.
O.43, R.1 of the CPC which covers appealable orders clearly makes an exception
where the plaintiff follows the procedure laid down in O.7, R.10A of the CPC.
Further where the plaintiff avails himself of the procedure of applying to the court
under O.7, R. 10A(2) of the CPC and the application is granted by the court then
O.7, R. 10A(5) bars an appeal against the order returning the plaint. On the
return of plaint, the procedure laid down in rules 10 and 10A are to be followed. 22
POWER OF APPELLATE COURT TO TRANSFER SUIT TO THE PROPER COURT:
10B. Power of appellate Court to transfer suit to the proper Court.
(1) Where, on an appeal against an order for the return of plaint, the Court hearing the appeal
confirms such order, the Court of appeal may, if the plaintiff by an application so desires, while
returning the plaint, direct plaintiff to file the plaint, subject to the provisions of the Limilaiion
Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), in the Court in which the suit should have been instituted (whether such
Court is within or without the State in which the Court hearing the appeal is situated), and fix a
date for the appearance of the parties in the Court in which the plaint is directed to be filed and
when the date is so fixed it shall not be necessary for the Court in which the plaint is filed to
serve the defendant with the summons for appearance in the suit, unless that Court in which the
plaint is filed, for reasons to be recorded, otherwise directs.
(2) The direction made by the Court under sub-rule (1) shall be without any prejudice to the
rights of the parties to question the jurisdiction of the Court, in which the plaint is filed, to try
the suit.

22

Mulla 1918.

13

Rule 10B empowers the court hearing an appeal against the order returning a
plaint to order that instead of returning the plaint, the suit may be transferred to
the court where it should have been filed. Such a court may or may not be within
the State in which the appellate Court is situated. Such an order can be passed
only if the plaintiff makes an application and desires the suit to be transferred.
The order is subject to the provisions of the Limitation Act and without prejudice
to the right of the parties to dispute the jurisdiction of the transferee court.
Finally, fixing the date for appearance does away with the necessity of a fresh
service of summons.23
REJECTION OF PLAINT
Rejection of plaint is different from dismissal of suit. In the latter a decree is
passed while in the former is only a deemed decree as per Section 2(2) of the
CPC. Dismissal for non-payment of court-fee amounts to rejection of plaint and
not really a dismissal of the suit. Rejection of plaint does not preclude the filing of
a fresh suit involving the same parties and the same cause of action (i.e. it is not
hit by res judicata).24
O.7 R.11 of the CPC reads as follows:
The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the
Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper
insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the
requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so ;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law:
[(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;]
[(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply sub-rule (2) of rule 9;]
[Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or
supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for
reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an
exceptional nature for correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper,
as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such
time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.]
To properly understand at what stage the court can use its power under O.7, R.11
the case of Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra needs to be looked at.

23
24

Mulla 1919.
Sarkar P. 1004.

14

Facts:
The appellant filed an application under O.7, R.11 of the CPC, 1908 in the
suits praying the court to dismiss the suits as per Clauses (a) and (d). The
respondents also filed the application under O.8, R.10 CPC to pronounce
judgment in the suits as the appellant did not file his written statement. There
was also an application by the appellant under S.151 CPC praying the court to
decide first the application under O.7, R.11 of CPC.
The Trial Judge dismissed the application under O.8, R.10 as well as the
application filed under Section 151 C.P.C. Insofar as the application under O.8,
R.11 of CPC was concerned, the Judge directed the appellant to file his written
statement.
The appellant filed revision petitions before the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh. The High Court, while confirming the order of the Trial Judge reiterated
the direction, that the appellant should file his written statement and observed
that the trial court shall frame issues of law and facts arising out of pleadings
and that the trial court should record its finding on the preliminary issue in
accordance with law before proceeding to try the suit on facts. Aggrieved by this
the petitioners approached the Supreme Court.
The Apex Court held that the trial court can exercise the power under O.7,
R.11 CPC at any stage of the suit, before registering the plaint or after issuing
summons to the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial. For the
purposes of deciding an application under Clauses (a) and (d) of O.7, R.11 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.
Therefore, a direction to file the written statement without deciding the
application cannot but be procedural irregularity touching the exercise of
jurisdiction by the trial court. The order thus, suffers from non-exercising of the
jurisdiction vested in the court as well as procedural irregularity.
O.7, R.11 does not place any restriction or limitation on the exercise of
power of the court. It does not either expressly or by necessary implication
provide that the power should be exercised at any particular stage only. In the

15

absence of any statutory restriction, it is open to the court to use this power at
any stage.25

EXCERSISE OF COURTS POWER EVEN AFTER ISSUES HAVE BEEN FRAMED AND
ITS APPLICABILITY TO ELECTION PETITIONS:

The case of Samar Singh v. Kedar Nath26 dealt with whether the court
could use its powers under O.7, R.11 even after issues had been framed. This
case also dealt with whether O.7, R.11 of the CPC would be applicable to election
petitions.
Facts:
During the General Elections, the appellant filed his nomination paper for
contesting election to the Lok Sabha. The appellants nomination paper was
accepted and he was allotted symbol of Lion. The appellant, Kedar Nath (the
respondent), and 17 other candidates contested the election. The appellant
could poll only 617 votes while Kedar Nath polled 2,55,828 votes and he was
declared

elected.

The

appellant

filed

election

petition

challenging

the

respondents election on a number of grounds.

The respondent appeared before the High Court, filed written statement
and contested the election petition. After issues were framed, the respondent
made an application for rejecting the election petition under O.7, R. 11 of CPC on
the ground that it disclosed no cause of action. A Single Judge of the High Court
after hearing the parties at length rejected the election petition on the finding
that the election petition did not disclose any cause of action. The appellant
approached the Supreme Court challenging the correctness of the High Court
order. The appellant argued that the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain
any application under O.7, R.11 of CPC after the settlement of issues.
The Supreme Court held that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code as
applicable to trial of suits have been made applicable under Section 92 to the
trial of election petition as nearly as possible. The provisions of the CPC do not
apply in their entirety to the trial of the election petition but the provisions of
O.7, R.11 apply to an election petition and the High Court has jurisdiction to
25
26

Mulla 1922.
AIR 1987 SC 1926.

16

reject a plaint which does not disclose any cause of action. It would be in the
interest of the parties to the petition and to the constituency and in public
interest to dispose off preliminary objection and to reject an election petition or a
plaint if it does not disclose any cause of action. Thus the powers of the court
under O 7 r 11 may be used even after the issues have been framed.
REJECTION OF PLAINT IN TOTO:
A plaint cannot be rejected in part, it has to be rejected in toto. This was
laid

down

in

the

case

of Kalepu

Pala

Subrahmanyam v. Tiguti

Venkatta

Peddiraju27.
Facts:
The petitioner had filed in a suit informa pauperis for recovery of
possession of plaint A to C Schedule properties. The court held that he had
means to pay and rejected his application. This order was confirmed by the High
Court in revision and thereafter, the petitioner restrict his right only to a half
share and paid a court-fee of Rs. 2,602/-. Then, the learned Subordinate Judge
held that the suit was barred by time in respect of items 1, 2 (a), 2 (b), 2 (c) and
3 (a) of plaint B Schedule and items 1 and 2 (a) of plaint C Schedule thereby
rejecting the plaint in respect of those items. As far as item 4 of plaint B
Schedule was concerned, he directed the plaintiff to file an application to treat
the relief regarding Item 4 as one filed under S.47, CPC. The plaintiff then filed a
revision petition at the High Court. The High Court dismissed the petition and
directed the rejection of the entire plaint as opposed to the action of the
Subordinate Court. It held that under O.7, R.11, the entire plaint had to be
rejected and not just one or more parts.
There are certain cases in which a plaint shall be rejected. They are specified
under O.7, R.11of Civil Procedure Code as follows:
Clause (a) When the plaint does not disclose a cause of action
The Court is bound to reject the plaint if it does not disclose a cause of action.
But in order to reject the plaint on this ground, the court must look at the plaint
and at nothing else. A plea that there is no cause of action is different from one
that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action. In the latter case there is a
27

AIR 1971 AP 313.

17

duty upon the court to decide the issue before the issuing of summons. The
power to reject a plaint on this ground is exercised only if the court comes to a
conclusion that even if all the allegations set out in the plaint are proved, the
plaintiff would not be entitled to any relief. In that case the court will reject the
plaint without issuing summons to the defendant. Moreover, the plaint can be
rejected as a whole if it does not disclose the cause of action. A part of it cannot
be rejected.
Clause (b) Where the relief claimed is undervalued
If the relief claimed is under valued and the valuation is not corrected within the
time fixed by the court, the plaint must be rejected and if the correct valuation
would render the court incompetent to entertain the suit then clause (b) does not
apply and in such a case the correct course of action would be for the plaint to
be returned under O.7, R.10 of the CPC. The court however cannot itself fix a
valuation in place of the plaintiffs valuation. The Court cannot pass a composite
order requiring the valuation to be corrected and the additional court fee to be
paid on the corrected valuation. When a suit is not valued properly, the correct
order to pass is to call upon the plaintiff to give the correct valuation. 28
In the case of Meenakshisundaram Chettiar v. Venkatachalam Chettiar29
Facts:
The

appellant

filed

the

suit

praying

for

decree

against

the

respondent/defendant to render account of all transactions of the respondent as

petitioners agent including the amount recovered by him from Alagappa Chettiar
and pay to the petitioner the amount found due on such rendition of accounts. In
the written statement filed by the defendant it was contended that the suit is not
properly valued and proper court-fee has not been paid. The trial court framed
an issue as to whether the suit had been properly valued and proper court-fee
had been paid. It answered the issue holding that the plaint has been properly
valued and proper court-fee has been paid. The suit was dismissed by the trial
court on the ground that the plaintiff has not proved that the defendant is liable
to account and that the suit was barred by limitation. On an appeal by the
plaintiff to the High Court, the High Court found that the plaint made it clear that
apart from the money which the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff as his
agent, the plaintiff has quantified the amount at Rs. 9,74,598.35 as payable by
the defendant to him which is made clear in allegations in paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and
28
29

Chitaley 73.
(1980) 1 SCC 616 : AIR 1979 SC 989.

18

9 of the paint and therefore the plaintiff ought to have valued the suit at Rs.
9,74,598.35. The appeal was disposed of on the ground that the plaint had not
been properly valued and hence the petitioner appeared before the Supreme
Court.
The Court held that O. 7, R. 11(b) casts a duty on the court to reject the
plaint when the relief claimed is undervalued. If on the materials available before
it the Court is satisfied that the value of relief as estimated by the plaintiff in a
suit for accounts is undervalued the plaint is liable to be rejected. It is therefore
necessary that the plaintiff should take care that the valuation is adequate and
reasonable taking into account the circumstances of the case. In coming to the
conclusion that the suit is undervalued the court will have to take into account
that in a suit for accounts the plaintiff is not obliged to state the exact amount
which would result after the taking of the accounts. If he cannot estimate the
exact amount he can put a tentative valuation upon the suit for accounts which
is adequate and reasonable. The plaintiff cannot arbitrarily and deliberately
undervalue the relief. The only requirement is that there must be a genuine effort
on the part of plaintiff to estimate his relief and that the estimate should not be a
deliberate underestimation. The court further held that in the present case the
estimate of the relief as given by the plaintiff was not inadequate or
unreasonable or a deliberate underestimation and hence the court allowed the
appeal and set aside the judgment of the Madras High Court.
Clause (c) Where the plaint is insufficiently stamped.
This provision will only have effect when there is some stamp on the paper. A
situation where there exists no stamp at all will not come under the purview of
this rule. The Court would exercise its power under this rule when the suit is
properly valued but insufficiently stamped. Section 149 30 of the CPC empowers
the court at any stage to allow a plaintiff to make up a deficiency in court fees,
and provides in effect that when the deficiency has been made up, the plaint is
as valid as if it had been properly stamped when presented. If the requisite court
fee is paid within the time extended by the court, the suit or appeal must be
treated as instituted from the date of presentation of plaint or memorandum of
appeal for the purpose of limitation as well as payment of court fee. If the
plaintiff cannot pay the court fees, he may apply to continue the suit as an
indigent person.
30

Section.149 Power to make up deficiency of court-fees.

19

Clause (d) Where the suit appears to be barred by law

Where the suit appears from the statements in the plaint to be barred by
any law, the court will reject it. A good example of rejection of plaint under this
head can be seen in the case of Tej Kiran v. Sanjiva Reddy31.
Facts:
A full bench of the High Court rejected a plaint by six appellants claiming
a decree for damages for defamatory statements made by former Speaker of the
Lok Sabha, Home Minister and three members of Parliament on the floor of the
Lok Sabha during a motion. It held that no proceedings could be taken in a Court
of law in respect of what was said on the floor of Parliament in view of Article
105(2) of the Constitution. However, certified the case as fit for appeal under
Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of
the High Court as the filing of such a suit would be barred by Article 105(2) of the
Constitution32.
Similarly if the plaint shows that the suit is barred by limitation, the plaint
will have to be rejected, however if the question of limitation is connected with
the merits of the case, the matter requires to be decided along with other
issues.33 The plaint may also be rejected if it is not filed in duplicate.
For instance, where in a suit against the government, the plaint does not
state that the notice as required by S. 80 of the Code has been given; the plaint
will be rejected under this clause. But where waiver of such notice is pleaded, the
court cannot reject the plaint without giving the plaintiff an opportunity to
establish that fact.
PROCEDURE:
Where a plaint has been rejected by the court, the judge will pass the
order to that effect and will record reason for it. 34
NON COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY PROVISIONS:
The grounds given under Section 11 are not exhaustive. In the case
of T.Arivadandam v. Satyapal35, the Supreme Court held that if on a meaningful
reading of the plaint it is manifestly found to be vexatious and meritless in the

31

AIR 1970 SC 1573.

Section.105(2).
33
Takwani 165.
34
O.7, R.12.
35
AIR 1977 SC 2421.
32

20

sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the court may exercise its power of
rejection under this rule.
An order rejecting a plaint is a deemed decree as per Section 2(2) of the
CPC, and hence would be appealable under Section 96 of the CPC. It would be
relevant to look at the case of Bibhas Mohan Mukherjee v. Hari Charan
Banerjee36
The suit out of which this reference arises was one for a declaration that a
certain preliminary decree is a suit for partition passed on compromise was
invalid, inoperative and fraudulent and for certain other reliefs one of which was
for a new preliminary decree. Initially the plaintiffs treated the reliefs claimed by
them as for partition only and paid a court-fee stamp of Rs. 15/- upon the plaint.
On the objection of the Court, however, the plaintiffs put in an additional courtfee stamp of Rs. 20/-. This court-fee was tentatively accepted by the Court as
sufficient subject to any objection that might be raised by the defendants. After
the defendants had entered appearance in the suit, they raised a point as to the
sufficiency of court-fees paid by the plaintiffs.
The issue as to sufficiency of court-fees was tried as a preliminary issue in
the suit and upon that issue the subordinate Judge held that the suit filed by the
plaintiffs was not for partition but one for a declaration with consequential reliefs
under Section 7 (iv) (e) of the Court-fees Act and held that the plaintiffs were
required to pay ad valorem court-fees upon a sum of Rs. 8,000/-. The learned
Subordinate Judge directed the plaintiffs to pay deficit court-fee to the extent of
Rs. 610/- , in default, the suit would stand dismissed under Section 8-B (3) of the
Court-tees Act.
After an unsuccessful attempt to get an extension of time the plaintiffs
eventually failed to deposit the additional court-fees as directed by the Court
with the result that the suit stood dismissed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 8-B (3) of the Court-fees Act. A decree was drawn up by the Court and
against that decree the plaintiffs filed an appeal to this Court.
When the appeal came up for hearing a preliminary objection was raised
on behalf of the respondents on the ground that the order passed by the
Subordinate Judge under Section 8-B (3) of the Court fees Act was not a decree
within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure and as such
the appeal filed by the plaintiffs was not competent.
36

AIR 1961 Cal. 491.

21

The court held that on the failure of the plaintiff to pay deficit court-fees
after the registration of the plaint the Court may exercise the powers conferred
upon it by both Order 7, Rule 11 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure and also by
Section.8-B (3) of the Court-fees Act. Under Order 7, Rule 11 (c) of the Code of
Civil Procedure the plaint shall be rejected. Under Section.8- B (3) of the Courtfees Act the suit shall be dismissed. In form, the order passed under Section.8-B
(3) of the Court-fees Act is an order of dismissal of the suit. In substance, the
order is an order of rejection of the plaint.
Whether the suit he dismissed under Section 8-B (3) of the Court-fees Act
or whether the plaint be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 (c) of the Code of Civil
Procedure, in either case there is no decision on the merits. In my opinion, the
Order of dismissal of the suit under Section 8-B (3) of the Court-fees Act is, in
substance, an order of rejection of the plaint and as such amounts to a decree
within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Thus all cases of rejection of plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 are appealable.

22

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books referred:

C.K Thakwani, Civil Procedure, (5th Edition, Lucknow: Eastern Book Company,
2004), p. 164.

D.V Chitaley, The Code of Civil Procedure, (9th Edition, Nagpur: All India Reporter Pvt.
Ltd, 1977) p. 51.

M.P Jain, The Code of Civil Procedure, (1st Edition, Nagpur: Wadhwa & Co.,
2004), p. 552.

Sudipto Sarkar & V.R Manohar, Sarkars Code of Civil Procedure, (10th Edition, Volume.
1, Nagpur: Wadhwa & Co., 2002), p. 993.

Solil Paul & Anupam Srivastava, Mullas The Code of Civil Procedure, (16th Edition, Vol.
2, New Delhi: Butterworths, 2002), p.1911.

23