CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY

Legal incidents of Plaint

Civil Procedure Code

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .............................................................................................................................................. I
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................. II
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. - 1 -
PARTICULARS OF A ‘PLAINT’ ................................................................................................................................... - 1 -
Parties to suit ..................................................................................................................................................... - 2 -
Cause of action ................................................................................................................................................... - 2 -
Name, description and place of residence of plaintiff and defendant ................................................................ - 2 -
'Facts constituting the cause of action' .............................................................................................................. - 3 -
Facts showing that the court has jurisdiction .................................................................................................... - 3 -
Valuation ............................................................................................................................................................ - 3 -
Defendant's interest and liability to be shown ................................................................................................... - 4 -
Grounds of exemption from limitation law ........................................................................................................ - 4 -
PLAINT IN DIFFERENT TYPE OF CASES ...................................................................................................................... - 4 -
In money suits..................................................................................................................................................... - 4 -
Specific performance .......................................................................................................................................... - 4 -
CHAPTER 2 LEGAL INCIDENTS OF PLAINT ................................................................................................. - 5 -
GENERAL PRINCIPLES REGARDING PLEADINGS ........................................................................................................ - 5 -
IN SUITS FOR IMMOVABLE PROPERTY (RULE 3) ....................................................................................................... - 5 -
Description of immovable property.................................................................................................................... - 5 -
Particulars of property not mentioned in plaint ................................................................................................. - 6 -
WHEN PLAINTIFF SUES AS REPRESENTATIVE (RULE 4) ............................................................................................ - 6 -
GROUNDS OF EXEMPTION FROM LIMITATION LAW (RULE 6) ................................................................................... - 7 -
RELIEF TO BE SPECIFICALLY STATED (RULE 7) ........................................................................................................ - 8 -
Relief based on grounds beyond pleadings ........................................................................................................ - 8 -
General or other reliefs does not include inconsistent relief ............................................................................. - 8 -
Larger relief cannot be granted ......................................................................................................................... - 9 -
RELIEF FOUNDED ON SEPARATE GROUNDS (RULE 8) ............................................................................................... - 9 -
EVENTS HAPPENING AFTER INSTITUTION OF SUIT .................................................................................................... - 9 -
PROCEDURE ON ADMITTING PLAINT (RULE 9) ........................................................................................................ - 9 -
CHAPTER 3 RETURN & REJECTION OF PLAINT - EFFECT .................................................................... - 10 -
RETURN OF PLAINT ................................................................................................................................................ - 10 -
Applicability ..................................................................................................................................................... - 10 -
Process of returning the plaint ......................................................................................................................... - 10 -
Return of plaint for presentation before proper Court..................................................................................... - 10 -
Return of plaint by Court in appeal or revision ............................................................................................... - 11 -
Return wrongly by proper Court ...................................................................................................................... - 11 -
Return of plaint by Tribunal ............................................................................................................................. - 12 -
Representation after return of plaint — Defendant dies in the meanwhile ...................................................... - 12 -
REJECTION OF PLAINT ............................................................................................................................................ - 13 -
Scope and Object.............................................................................................................................................. - 13 -
Rejection of plaint in part................................................................................................................................. - 13 -
Rejection of plaint for non-disclosure of cause of action ................................................................................. - 14 -
Rejection of plaint for not seeking correct relief .............................................................................................. - 15 -
Two or more defendants — Plaint disclosing no cause of action against one ................................................. - 15 -
Rejection of plaint at plaintiff-appellant's prayer ............................................................................................ - 15 -
Rejection of plaint for under-valuation ............................................................................................................ - 15 -
Remedy for rejection of plaint or memo of appeal for non-payment of Court-fee ........................................... - 16 -
Rejection of plaint when suit barred prima facie ............................................................................................. - 16 -
Rejection of plaint for improper joinder of party ............................................................................................. - 17 -
CHAPTER 4 CASE LAWS.................................................................................................................................... - 18 -
CASE: AMAR CHAND V. UNION OF INDIA.............................................................................................................. - 18 -
CASE: R.S.D.V. FINANCE COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED V. SHREE VALLABH GLASS WORKS LIMITED............... - 19 -
CASE: SALEEM BHAI V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA .............................................................................................. - 20 -
CASE: SAMAR SINGH V. KEDAR NATH .................................................................................................................. - 21 -
CASE: MEENAKSHISUNDARAM CHETTIAR V. VENKATACHALAM CHETTIAR ....................................................... - 22 -
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................................ - 24 -
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................................................... - 26 -
 Page |I

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Any project completed or done in isolation is unthinkable. This project, although prepared by me,
is a culmination of efforts of a lot of people. Firstly, I would like to thank our Professor for Civil
Procedure Code, Dr. B. Ravi. Narayan Sarma, for his valuable suggestions towards the making of
this project.
Further to that, I would also like to express my gratitude towards our seniors who were a lot of
help for the completion of this project. The contributions made by my classmates and friends are,
definitely, worth mentioning.
I would like to express my gratitude towards the library staff for their help as well. I would also
like to thank the persons interviewed by me without whose support this project would not have
been completed.
Last, but far from the least, I would express my gratitude towards the Almighty for obvious
reasons.
 P a g e | II

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

 Method of Research
The researcher has adopted a purely doctrinal method of research. The researcher has made
extensive use of the library at the Chanakya National Law University and also the internet sources.
 Aims and Objectives
The aim of the project is to present an overview of ‘Plaint’ and discuss the legal incidents arising
out of it.
 Sources of Data:
The following secondary sources of data have been used in the project-
1. Cases
2. Books
3. Websites

 Method of Writing:
The method of writing followed in the course of this research paper is primarily descriptive.

 Mode of Citation
The researcher has followed a uniform mode of citation throughout the course of this research
paper.
 Page |-1-

Chapter 1
Introduction
Rule 1(1) of Order IV, C.P.C, states that “Every suit shall be instituted by presenting a plaint...”,
thereby making a ‘plaint’ essential for filing a suit.
The expression “plaint” has not been defined in the Code, but it means “a private memorial
tendered to a court in which a person sets forth his cause of action; the exhibition of an action in
writing.”1
It can be said to be a statement of claim, a document, by presentation of which the suit is instituted.
Its object is to state the grounds upon which the assistance of the court is sought by the plaintiff.
Just as the ‘written statement’ is a pleading of the defendant, a ‘plaint’ is a pleading of the
plaintiff.2
The object of plaint, or any pleading in general, is to bring parties to definite issues and to diminish
expense and delay and to prevent surprise at the hearing. A party is entitled to know the case of
his opponent so that he can meet it. In other words, the sole object of pleadings is to ascertain the
real disputes between the parties, to narrow down the area of conflict and to see where the two
sides differ, to preclude one party from taking the other by surprise and to prevent miscarriage of
justice.3

Particulars of a ‘Plaint’
Rule 1(2) of Order IV, C.P.C, makes it mandatory for every plaint to comply with the rules
contained in Orders VI and VII. Rule 1, Order VII, provides for the particulars to be contained
in plaint. The plaint shall contain the following particulars: —
(a) the name of the court in which the Suit is brought;
(b) the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff;
(c) the name, description and place of residence of the defendant, so far as they can be ascertained;
(d) where the plaintiff or the defendant is a minor or a person of unsound mind, a statement to that
affect;
(e) the facts constituting the cause of action and when it arose;
(f) the facts showing that the court has jurisdiction;

1 Assan v. Pathumma, ILR (1899) 22 Mad 494.

2 Nanikuty v. Krishmin, AIR 1978 Ker 3 1977 Ker LT 773.
3 Throp v. Holdsworth, (1876) 3 Ch D 635
 Page |-2-

(g) the relief which the plaintiff claims;

(h) where the plaintiff has allowed a set off or relinquished a portion of his claim the amount so
allowed or relinquished; and
(i) a statement of the value of the subject matter of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction and of
court fees, so far as the case admits.

Parties to suit
There must be two parties in every suit, namely, the plaintiff and the defendant. There may,
however, be more than one plaintiff or more than one defendant. But there must be at least one
plaintiff and one defendant in every suit. All particulars, such as name, father’s name, age, place
of residence, etc., which are necessary to identify the parties, must be stated in the plaint.

Cause of action
Every suit presupposes the existence of a cause of action against the defendant because if there is
no cause of action, the plaint will have to be rejected.
Even though the expression "cause of action" has not been defined in the Code, it may be described
as "a bundle of essential facts, which it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove before he can
succeed'', or "which gives the plaintiff right to relief against the defendant". Thus, "cause of
action" means every fact, which it is necessary to establish to support a right or obtain a judgment.
To put it differently, cause of action gives occasion for and forms the foundation of the suit.4
It is necessary for the plaintiff to state specifically when such cause of action arose. This will
enable the defendant as well as the court to ascertain from the plaint whether in fact and in law
the cause of action as alleged by the plaintiff in the plaint did arise or not. For deciding whether
the facts averred by the plaintiff would or would not constitute cause of action, partly or wholly,
the court must consider whether such facts constitute material, essential or integral part of the
cause of action. If it is, it forms a cause of action, but if it is not, it does not form a cause of action.
In determining the said question, the substance of the matter and not the form thereof should be
considered.5

Name, description and place of residence of plaintiff and defendant

The plaint must contain the name, description and the place of residence of the parties. A Hindu
joint family can sue in the name of its manager.6 Where full particulars regarding a defendant are
not known to the plaintiff, an insufficient or even improper description does not make the plaint
defective.

4 Ramika Rai and others v. Naiad and others, AIR 2010 Chhatt
5 Dharampal Premehand bd. v. Golden Tobacco Pi-miners, AIR 2007 Del 266.
6 Kedar Nath v. Sheo Narain, AIR 1952 Pat 280
 Page |-3-

A plaint filed in the trade name of the sole owner of a proprietary firm is not void. The description
of the plaintiff as liquidator for and on behalf of the company is sufficient.7

'Facts constituting the cause of action'

The plaintiff must give such particulars as will enable the defendant and the court to ascertain
from the plaint whether in fact and in law the cause of action did arise as alleged or not. The
plaintiff's mere statement that it did arise or that he has a good cause of action is useless for this
purpose. The question whether documents annexed to the plaint and averments made to that extent
in the plaint are factually correct or not, is the subject-matter of the suit which cannot be decided
at the initial stage of the filing of plaint. The maintainability of the suit cannot be adjudged from
the effect which the decree may cause. It has to be determined on the basis of ostensible pleadings
made and the stated relief claimed in the plaint, suit on a promissory note by an endorsee. It must
be stated that a notice of dishonour had been given to the endorser, and if it was not given, the
facts that exempt from giving notice must be stated. In a suit for the ejectment of a tenant for a
payment of rent, the period for which the tenant has been in default should be stated. It is necessary
to state only the facts constituting the cause of action not the legal effect thereof' and the cause of
action must subsist the instituting of the petition on the date of the filing of the petition.8

Facts showing that the court has jurisdiction

If the plaintiff relies on the defendant's residence or place of business as giving jurisdiction, the
facts showing this must be stated in the body of the plaint. The statement of these facts in the title
to the suit is not sufficient as the title to the suit is not covered by the verification clause.9 The
plaint must aver all the facts showing how the court has jurisdiction. When proceedings are taken
before a tribunal, plaint must state how it has jurisdiction.

Valuation
The plaintiff must state in the plaint the valuation of the subject-matter of the suit for the purposes
of pecuniary jurisdiction of the court and court fees. Sometimes, the valuation of the subject-
matter for both the Purposes may be the same, as, for example, in a suit for recovery of money.
But sometimes, two valuations may differ, as, for example, in a suit for declaration or in a suit for
injunction or for possession of immovable property. In such a case, the plaintiff should distinctly
state the valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction of the court and for the purpose of
court fees.

7 P. B. Rammohan Reddi v. Chantal Achill, AIR 1974 AP 185

8 Hans Kumar v. Madras Rubber Factory, (1986) 29 Del
9 Dreachand Jain v. Kasoombiri, AIR 1980 All 117
 Page |-4-

Defendant's interest and liability to be shown

The plaint shall show that the defendant is or claims to be interested in the subject-matter, and
that he is liable to be called upon to answer the plaintiff's demand.

Grounds of exemption from limitation law

Where the suit is instituted after the expiration of the period prescribed by the law of limitation,
the plaint shall show the ground upon which exemption from such law is claimed:
Provided that the Court may permit the plaintiff to claim exemption for the law of limitation on
any ground not set out in the plaint, if such ground is not inconsistent with the grounds set out in
the plaint.

Plaint in different type of cases

In money suits
Where the plaintiff seeks the recovery of money the plaint shall state the precise amount claimed,
but where the plaintiff sues for mesne profits, or for an amount which will be found due to him
on taking unsettled accounts between him and the defendant or for movables in the possession of
the defendant or for debts of which the value he cannot, after the exercise of reasonable diligence
estimate, the plaint shall state approximately the amount or value sued for.
Suit for mesne profits- A claim for mesne profits must be valued, though approximately, and the
court fee kid thereon. But it is not necessary that future mesne profits should be valued. But if the
plaintiff makes a specific claim of a precise amount as future mesne profits, he is not entitled to
anything more than that claimed by him in his pleadings. In a suit for damages, the plaintiff must
state the amount of damages claimed and pay court fee thereon.10
Suit for accounts- This rule is applicable to a suit by an agent against his principal for an account
of monies due to him.11 Where the defendant fails to lead any evidence that the amount claimed
by the plaintiff was not taken by him or the same was returned, the suit is liable to be decreed with
interest.12

Specific performance
In a suit for specific performance the plaint must contain averments to the effect that the plaintiff
has applied to the defendant specifically to perform the agreement his part etc.13

10 Tej Kumar v. Subhash Chandra, AIR 1989 MP 78

11 Awadh Rehari v. Stair of UP., 1978 Bib
12 Kailash v. Subhash, AIR 1981 All 112
13 Avtat Chemicals Pvt Ltd and another v. Magna Laboratories (Gujarat) Pvt. bd. and matcher, AIR 2006 Del
 Page |-5-

Chapter 2
Legal incidents of Plaint
General principles regarding pleadings
Sub-rule (1) of Rule 2, Order VI lays down the fundamental principles of pleadings, and therefore,
the rule regarding plaint as well. It reads as under: “Every pleading shall contain, and contain only
a statement in a concise form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim
or defense as the case may be but not the evidence by which they are to be proved.”
Thus, according to this principle of pleading, a plaint should state only facts and not law. It is the
duty of the parties to state only the facts on which they rely upon for their claims. It is for the court
to apply the law to the facts pleaded. Secondly, the plaint should contain a statement of material
facts and material facts only. It means only, and all the facts upon which the plaintiff’s cause of
action depends, or, in other words, all those facts which must be proved in order to establish the
plaintiff’s right to relief claimed must be stated in the plaint. Thirdly, the plaint should only
contain the statement of material facts on which the party relies but not the evidence by which
those facts are to be proved, and fourthly, the plaint should be drafted with sufficient brevity and
precision.

In suits for immovable property (Rule 3)

Description of immovable property
Description of property sufficient to identify it, is essential. In case such property can be identified
by boundaries or numbers in survey records, such boundaries and numbers should be given in
plaint in respect of an immovable property. It is the duty of the Court to pass only such decrees
which can be executed with all precision and without any confusion or embarrassment either to
the executing Court or to any person. But for inaccurate description of property the Court should
call upon the party to furnish particulars even to the extent of allowing an amendment of the plaint.
When description of land by boundary is all right, a minor mistake in area does not matter.
Description by boundaries is to prevail over other descriptions. Mistake in survey number can be
ignored it property is described by correct boundaries. Where property can be identified by survey
number giving of boundaries is not essential.
Where the subject-matter of the suit is immovable property, the plaint shall contain a description
of the property sufficient to identify it, and, in case such property can be identified by boundaries
 Page |-6-

or numbers in a record of settlement or survey, the plaint shall specify such boundaries or
numbers.14
In a suit relating to immovable property, the plaint most disclose the identity of the property
without any ambiguity which would he reflected in the eventual decree that may passed in be the
suit. In the instant case, the decree was executed with reference to the boundary as mentioned in
the schedule to the plaint and the decree.15 The defendant had not controverted or disputed the
said boundary at any point of time and raised objection only after execution procedure is complete
by giving delivery of possession of the decretal land to the decree-holder, therefore, it was held
that the Executing Court had not committed any jurisdictional error in executing the decree with
reference to the specific and identifiable boundary given in the plaint.16
Even if the Court finds that the plaintiff had tide and possession in respect of the sun and, in
absence of proper description, as mentioned in Order VII, Rule 3, CPC the decree cannot be
17
executed.

Particulars of property not mentioned in plaint

In a suit for partition particulars of property is not mentioned in plaint. Such plaint is liable to be
rejected.18
In the instant case, the plot in question was distinctly identifiable on the basis of number and it
had been duly demarcated by the Revenue Authorities, which was made in the presence of
contesting defendants-respondents and the said demarcation had been accepted by the parties
which was not being disputed therefore, it was held that the Lower appellate Court had completely
ignored the provisions of Order VII, Rule 3, CPC in allowing the appeal and dismissing the suit
on ground that boundaries dismissing of the plot had not been disclosed by the plaintiffs
appellants.19

When plaintiff sues as representative (Rule 4)

Where the plaintiff sues in a representative character the plaint shall show not only that he has an
actual existing interest in the subject-matter, but that he has taken the steps (if any) necessary to
enable him to institute a suit concerning it.
Where a person dies leasing a will, the executor named in the will may obtains probate of the will.
Where a person dies intestate, his heirs may apply for letters of administration. The person to

14 Kumclut v Vasa Master, AIR 2005 Ker 191

15 Bangalore v. Global Software Ltd and others, AIR 2000 Mad 74
16 Ram Sakti v. Dinesh Aggarwal, AIR 2010 SC 1227
17 Narayanehandra Prashar v. Preen Kumar Dhumat, AIR 1994 HP 84.
18 Muria Rai v. Omprakash Gupta. 1980 Mah IJ 86
19 Mahatan v. Ayodh, Mahaton, AIR 1983 Pat 67
 Page |-7-

whom letters of administration are granted is called an administrator. The executor or

administrator, as the case may be, of a deceased person, is his legal representative for all purposes,
and all the property of the deceased vests in him as such. A suit by a person as executor or
administrator of a deceased person is a suit by him in a representative character. There are some
cases in which the law requires probate or letters of administration as the case may be, to entitle
a person suing in a representative character to a decree in respect of the estate of the deceased. In
a large number of cases, however, it is not necessary to obtain a probate or letters of administration
to entitle a plaintiff suing in a representative character to a decree in respect of the estate of the
deceased.20

Grounds of exemption from limitation law (Rule 6)

Where the suit is instituted after the expiration of the period prescribed by the law of limitation,
the plaint shall show the ground upon which exemption from such law is claimed:
Provided that the Court may permit the plaintiff to claim exemption for the law of limitation on
any ground not set out in the plaint, if such ground is not inconsistent with the grounds set out in
the plaint.21
These grounds are set forth in sections 12 to 20 of the Limitation Act 1908, and now sections 12
to 19 of the Limitation Act 1963. The language of the rule is mandatory obligatory upon the
plaintiff to plead such an exemption in the plaint itself and he must show the grounds on which
he seeks exemption.22 If no ground of exemption is shown in the plaint and the suit appears from
the statement in the plaint, to be barred by limitation, the plaint shall be rejected. However, a plaint
should not be rejected merely because the exemption is not claimed specifically. All that the rule
requires is that the plaint shall show the ground of exemption. It is sufficient if the facts on which
exemption is claimed are set out in the plaint. Thus, if the fact of acknowledgment is set out in the
plaint, it is not fatal to the maintainability of the suit that exemption is not specifically claimed on
the basis of the endorsement of return, even though that is not expressly stated in the plaint.23
If a plaint does not show any ground of exemption, the court of first instance should allow the
plaint to be amended save under very exceptional circumstances. But a plaintiff should not be
allowed to rely upon a ground of exemption from the law of limitation for the first time in appeal.
Where a ground exemption has been specified in the plaint, is it open to the plaintiff to put forward
at the trial another ground not set out in the plaint? The new proviso answers the question by
proving that the court may permit the plaintiff to claim exemption on any ground not set out in
the plaint. A new ground can only be relied on provided that some ground has already been
pleaded and the new ground sought to be urged is not inconsistent with the ground already raised

20 AmultaNalcien v. Vasudev Naicken, AIR 1967 Ker 85

21 Sri Hens Chandra v. Jyotibala. AIR 1970
22 Ajey Textile v. India Corporation, 1LR (I970) 2 Punj
23 Raj Kumar v. Amar Singh, AIR 1981 Punj 1
 Page |-8-

in the plaint. The Court may give permission (for example) if the necessary material is already on
record.24

Relief to be specifically stated (Rule 7)

Every plaint shall state specifically the relief which the plaintiff claims either singly or in the
alternative, and it shall not be necessary to ask for general or other relief which may always be
given as the Court may think just to the same extent as if it had been asked for. 25And the same
rule shall apply to any relief claimed by the defendant in his written statement.

Relief based on grounds beyond pleadings

Grant of larger relief than relief claimed is generally not permissible. It is the general law that
relief to be granted by a Court must be based on pleadings. But considerations of form cannot
override the legitimate consideration of substance. If a plea is not specifically taken and yet it is
covered by an issue by implication and the parties knew that such pleas are involved in the trial,
then the mere fact that the plea was not expressly taken in the pleadings would not necessarily
disentitle a party from relying upon it if it is satisfactorily proved by evidence.26 The relevant
consideration which should prevail in the mind of Court is: Did the parties know that the matter
in question was involved in the trial, and did they lead evidence about it? If it appears parties did
not know that the matter was in issue at the trial and one of them has had no opportunity to lead
evidence in respect of it, that would undoubtedly be a different matter.
To allow one party to rely upon a matter in respect of which the other party did not lead evidence
and has had no opportunity to lead evidence would introduce considerations of prejudice and in
doing justice to a party Court cannot do injustice to another.27 Thus, even, when the plaintiff fails
to establish his case he still then is entitled to relief on the basis of the case made out by the
defendant although not when the plaintiff’s claim is barred by limitation.
Plaintiff may claim relief on a particular provision of law erroneously but Court can grant relief
on correct provision of law if the party is entitled to the relief under the law.28

General or other reliefs does not include inconsistent relief

The reliefs which were not claimed and were not consistent with the pleadings of the parties,
cannot be granted. In the instant suit for title, the grant of relief of money decree was not consistent

24 Venlaaa Ran v. Kumarappa Rukka, AIR 1967 AP 141

25 Mann, Lal v. Chluitaka Bib, AIR 1971 SC 1374
26 Knshna Kumar v. Parameswari Devi, AIR 1967 Punt 389
27 Badrinath v. State of Peps. AIR 1957 Pepsu 14
28 Sharman v. Arida Chimniram, AIR 1949 Nag 373
 Page |-9-

with the pleadings of the plaintiffs, therefore, it was held that the said relief could not be granted
to the plaintiff/appellants.

Larger relief cannot be granted

Where the relief prayed for in the suit is a larger relief and if no case is made out for granting the
same but the facts, as established, justify granting of a smaller relief, Order VII, Rule 7 permits
granting of such a relief to the parties. However, under the said provisions a relief larger than the
one claimed by the plaintiff in the suit cannot be granted.29

Relief founded on separate grounds (Rule 8)

Where the plaintiff seeks relief in respect of several distinct claims or causes of action founded
upon separate and distinct grounds, they shall be stated as far as may be separately and distinctly.

Events happening after institution of suit

The basic rule is that the rights of the parties should be determined on the basis of the date of
filing of the suit. Thus, where the plaintiff has no cause of action on the date of the filing of the
suit, he will not ordinarily be allowed to take advantage of the cause of action arising subsequent
to the filing of the suit. Similarly, no relief will be refused to the plaintiff by reason of any
subsequent event if at the date of the institution of the suit, he has a substantive right.30
This, however, does not mean that no events happening after the institution of a suit can be taken
into account at all.31 In appropriate cases, it is not only the right but the duty of the court to consider
the changed circumstances.

Procedure on admitting plaint (Rule 9)

Where the Court orders that the summons be served on the defendants in the manner provided in
Rule 9 of Order V, it will direct the plaintiff to present as many copies of the plaint on plain paper
as there are defendants within seven days from the date of such order along with requisite fee for
service of summons on the defendants.32
This rule lays down the procedure when the plaint is admitted by the court. It provides for filing
of copies of the plaint by the plaintiff and also requires him to pay requisite fees for the service of
summons on the defendants within seven days.33

29 Atul Krishna Banerjee v. Bhaurilal, AIR 1952 Assam 149: ILR 11952) 4 Assam 262
30 S.C. Bose and Co. and others v. G. Srikanth, AIR 2006 AP 337.
31 Suraj Bhan Gupto v. Union of India, AIR 1977 Del 158
32 Rameswar Dhari v. Salm Saran, AIR 1923 Pat 353
33 Ganga Pmsad v. Girja Den. AIR 1949 Par 366
 P a g e | - 10 -

Chapter 3
Return & Rejection of Plaint - Effect
Return of Plaint
Rule 10-10B, Order VII, C.P.C. provides for the return of plaint.

Applicability

It is to be noted that if it is not a case that suit was wrongly instituted in District Court, provisions
of Order VII, Rule 10 would not apply.

Process of returning the plaint

The Court can pass necessary order to serve the ends of justice and for cutting through the
procedural tangle which has delayed the decision. The procedure about the returning of a plaint
has been provided in Order VII, Rule 10, CPC, and the newly added Rule 10-A inserted by the
Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976. Rule 10-A applies when the defendant has
already appeared and, thereafter the Court finds that it has no jurisdiction. The provision as to
specification of Court to which the returned plaint is to be presented is not mandatory.34 Court
cannot after making an order for returning plaint and before making endorsement make any
amendment. Even if the suit is deemed to be pending until such an endorsement, it is only for the
purpose of calculating the period of exclusion under Section 14, Limitation Act.35

Return of plaint for presentation before proper Court

When a suit is transferred to a Court which finds that it has no jurisdiction then transferee Court
must not return the plaint, it must re-present the plaint to the Court from which it has been
transferred. Court then cannot assign the record to District Judge for transferring the same to
proper Court. When the Court is possessed of no pecuniary jurisdiction. the Colin cannot reject
the plaint but should return the plaint.36 Similar is the law when Court finds territorial jurisdiction
lacking. Suit triable by Small Cause Court when filed in Munsiff's Court should not be transferred
but plaint is liable to be returned for presentation in proper Court. This power of returning the
plaint can be exercised even when the plaintiff has only filed a petition to sue in forma pauperis
under Order XXXIII, Rule C.P.C. It is because when a petition to sue as indigent is filed, there

34 A.S. Oversew Pvt. Ltd. v. Sri Sri Iswar Chinta Harare Shiv Thakur. (1994)
35 Harmahimier Singh Prailhan v. Ranker Singh, AIR 2005 SC
36 Agya Ram lina v. Vidyagauri J. Malian and another, 2008 (1) Civil LJ 106 (Rom).
 P a g e | - 11 -

are before the Court such petition plus plaint. If the Court finds on perusal of plaint that it exceeds
his pecuniary limit, it can return the plaint plus the petition to sue in forma pauperis.37
When a suit is properly instituted in a Court but the Court loses territorial jurisdiction thereafter.
Order VII, Rule 10, C.P.C. cannot be invoked. The plaint in that case cannot be returned. Lack
of jurisdiction when is found after evidence being led, the proper order is to return the plaint and
not to dismiss. If a suit is found per se not tenable, the plaint is to be returned e returned; when
the question of jurisdiction depends also on merits, then the Court can dismiss the suit and in the
alternative, return the plaint.38 For cases where suit cognizable by lower Court is filed in higher
Court, it is discretionary for the higher Court to return the plaint or to try itself. When a plaint
filed in a Court is returned on the erroneous finding that the Court had no jurisdiction, but later
the plaint is presented to proper court beyond time, the suit must be held to have been filed on the
date the plaint was presented in the Original Court. When a plaint is presented in a proper Court
after verbal amendment, the plaintiff is entitled to credit the Court-fee paid in the first Court. Court
returning plaint cannot extend time for representing the plaint in Court.39

Return of plaint by Court in appeal or revision

Explanation added to Order VII, Rule 10, by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976
lays down that a Court of appeal or revision may direct the plaint to be returned after setting aside
the decree passed by Trial Court. The views on the point were divergent. This divergence has been
set at rest by the Explanation coming into force with effect from February 1, 1977. In a Division
Bench case of Calcutta, the valuation of suit was only Rs. 15,000/- and the memo of appeal with
no valuation mentioned was filed before the High Court on 8th August, 1991. According to the
valuation of the suit the District Court but High Court was not the proper forum of appeal. On
10th August, the valuation ache suit was raised to Rs. 1,00,000/- only by amendment. The
Division Bench held that the valuation of the suit should be treated to be enhanced with effect
from 10th August. So, the memo of appeal was returned with a view to represent it to High Court
on any date after 10th August.40

Return wrongly by proper Court

It may so happen that a Court competent to try on an erroneous view has returned the plaint for
presentation in another Court, and realizing the mistake the plaintiff represents the plaint in the
very Court which returned the plaint. Then the suit must be deemed to have been filed in the
proper Court on the date of original filing of the plaint, and not the date of representation.41

37 Mohan Chandra Tiwari v. Unruh Chandra Ilhanda, AIR 2003 Uttn

38 Sateembhai v State of Maharashtra, AIR 2003 SC 759
39 Ramesh B. Desai and others v. Hipin Vat!. Mehra and others.. 2007 (2) Civil I,J 90
40 Mohan Chandra Tiwari v. Unruh Chandra Ilhanda, AIR 2003 Uttn 10
41 Krithaaanthan arid another v. Esakki Arnmaland others, 2007 (2) Civil LJ 88
 P a g e | - 12 -

Return of plaint by Tribunal

The Tribunal would have jurisdiction to direct return of the plaint but in cases limited to pecuniary
or territorial jurisdiction.

Representation after return of plaint — Defendant dies in the meanwhile

If the plaint is filed against a defendant who was dead and then the plaint is returned, no refiling
of plaint in proper Court is permissible by substituting dead defendant by his legal
representatives.42 But, if the plaint is returned in a suit filed against alive defendant, and he dies
in the meanwhile, the plaintiff by his own right can amend the plaint by substituting the deceased
defendant by his legal representatives. If he does not, Court on an application filed simultaneously
with the plaint can implead his legal representatives under Order I, Rule 10(2), C.P.C.43

42 State of Electricity Board v. Verendra Hotel & Allied Industries (P.) La. (2000)9 SCC 738'
43 AmultaNalcien v. Vasudev Naicken, AIR 1967 Ker 85 1965 Ker
 P a g e | - 13 -

Rejection of plaint
Rule 11, Order VII, C.P.C. provides that 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 comply with the provision of Rule 9.
Provided that the time fixed by the court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the
requisite stamp papers 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 from correcting
the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp papers, 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.
Rule 12 gives out the procedure on rejecting plaint. It states that where a plaint is rejected, the
Judge shall record an Order to that effect with the reasons for order.

Scope and Object

The real object of Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC is to keep out of Courts irresponsible law suits,
therefore, Order X of CPC is a tool in the hands of the Courts by resorting to which and by
searching examination of the party in case the Court is prima facie of the view that the suit is an
abuse of the process of the Court in the sense that it is a bogus and irresponsible litigation the
jurisdiction under Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC can be exercised, however, Order VII, Rule 11 does
not justify rejection of any particular portion of the plaint, Order VI, Rule 16 is relevant which
deals with streaking out pleadings at any stage of the proceedings Order VI, Rule 2(1) of CPC
states the basic and cardinal rule of pleadings and declares that the pleadings have to gate material
facts and not evidence.44
An application under Order VII, Rule 11(d) is an application which has to be examined and
ordered only on the plaint averments and nothing else.45

Rejection of plaint in part

If on a meaningful, not formal reading of plaint, it is found manifestly vexations, meritless, in the
sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the plaint is to be rejected. For want of cause of action

44 Tej Kumar v. Subhash Chandra, AIR 1989 MP 78. I I

45 Kailash v. Subhash, AIR 1981 All 112.
 P a g e | - 14 -

plaint is liable to be rejected.46 If plaintiff combines several causes at action against several
defendants it still remains one plaint. If rejection of plaint has got to be made, it must be with
teepee to the whole of the plaint. So, in such an eventuality rejection of plaint is not proper.' Plaint
can be rejected in its entirety or not at all. So, when cause of action arises out of actions of four
persons together and the plaint is liable to be rejected against one, it must be rejected as a whole.'
Although plaint cannot be rejected in part, the part barred by limitation can be struck off under
Order VI, Rule 16, C.P.C.47
It may so happen that the plaintiff has claimed an alternative relief but has not paid Court-fee
thereon; despite order has not made good the deficit Court-fee as to the alternative relief but the
whole plaint is to be rejected. In appeal, he cannot be heard to say that he desires to withdraw his
claim as to the alternative relief.48
Plaint when discloses cause of action against some of the defendants only, it is not open to Court
to discharge the defendants against whom no cause of action is disclosed and to strike off their
names. Plaint cannot be rejected because of the plaint not being signed by some of the plaintiffs. 49

Rejection of plaint for non-disclosure of cause of action

Under Order VII, Rule 11(a) for non-disclosure of cause of action plaint is liable to be rejected.
To find out whether a plaint discloses a cause of action or not, the Court has to look only to the
allegations in the plaint and should assume them to be correct for the time being and then to
ascertain whether those allegations disclose a cause of action or not. But all the facts (not the
evidence) necessary to be proved for claiming relief must be stated.50
The whole purpose of conferment of powers under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless and bound to prove abortive, should
not be permitted to occupy the time of the Court and must be terminated and brought to an end at
the earliest. The plaint is, therefore, liable to be rejected against the applicant and the suit may be
dismissed as against them. The applicant should not be put to the long and expensive process of
trial and the burden of litigation when it is clear at the outset that original plaintiff has no cause of
action against the applicant and the plaint discloses no cause of action whatsoever.51
There is a clear distinction between a case where the plaint itself discloses no cause of action and
a case where the parties after they have produced oral and documentary evidence, the Court after
consideration of all the materials on the record comes to the conclusion that there is no cause of
action for the suit. In the former case Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. is attracted and not in the latter
case.' When plaint is based on a document filed along with the plaint, it can, however, be

46 Dreachand Jain v. Kasoombiri, AIR 1980 All 117.

47 Walaiti Ram Seth v. Sri Krishna Kapoo, AIR 1976 Del
48 Hans Kumar v. Madras Rubber Factory, ( 1986) 29 Del LT
49 Dharampal Premehand bd. v. Golden Tobacco Pi-miners, AIR 2007 Del 266
50 Nanikuty v. Krishmin, AIR 1978 Ker 3 1977 Ker LT 773.
51 Vern Laboratories v. Hindustan Runnier, AIR 1979 Del 114
 P a g e | - 15 -

considered to ascertain if plaint discloses any cause of action. Plaint for damages for malicious
prosecution, is liable to be rejected when averment about malice is absent. When on undisputed
facts a question of law arises on which there may be controversy or an interpretation of law on
which two views may he canvassed, plaint cannot be rejected.52

Rejection of plaint for not seeking correct relief

A suit cannot be dismissed by rejection of plaint for not having claimed correct relief. A relief,
which is claimed in a plaint, can be moulded by the Court and if the relief, which is claimed by
the plaintiff is not proved, the Court may refute to grant such relief, but it cannot reject the plaint
because the relief claimed for by the plaintiff is not substantiated by him on evidence. Moulding
of relief is permissible under Order V11, Rule 7, C.P.C.53

Two or more defendants — Plaint disclosing no cause of action against one

When a suit is filed against two defendants, and no cause of action is disclosed against one by the
plaint averment (here the contract alleged was not enforceable against that one), the suit cannot
be allowed to proceed against that defendant and his name is liable to be struck off from the plaint.

Rejection of plaint at plaintiff-appellant's prayer

If at the appellate stage, the plaintiff-appellant himself prays for rejection of plaint on the ground
of absence of cause of action. then if Court feels plaint should not be Owed, it cannot dismiss the
suit, it must remand the suit for decision of the suit on merit.54

Rejection of plaint for under-valuation

Clause (b) of Rule 11 provides that under-valuation and omission to correct valuation despite
being asked by Court entails rejection of plaint. The mode and the rules relating to valuation of
suit have been dealt in the Suits Valuation Act. The general principles for valuation of suits for
the purpose of jurisdiction are: (a) where the subject-matter of a suit is wholly unrelated to
anything which can be readily stated in money terms and where the plaintiff puts a money value
which is not arbitrary and not dishonest, the Court will accept the valuation and, (b) where the
subject-matter is so related to things which have a real money value that the relief asked for will
affect these, then the value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction is to be taken as the market
value of the property' affected.' When a case is covered by (a) above Court will not ordinarily
interfere with the plaintiff’s valuation unless the same is illegal, palpably absurd, manifestly

52 P. B. Rammohan Reddi v. Chantal Achill, AIR 1974 AP 185

53 Jagrumarb Period v. Sim Chandrawati, AIR 1970 All 309
54 Andhra Steel v A S.0 Engineers, 84 Cal WN 822
 P a g e | - 16 -

illogical or arithmetically wrong. It is, however, open to Court to revise the same or to refuse to
revise.55
The plaint can be rejected where the relief claimed is under-valued or where the relief claimed is
properly valued but plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and on being required by
the Court to supply the request stamp paper within a time fixed by the Court fails to do so.
However, when there is a case of total non-payment of Court fees Order VII. Rule 11 would not
be attracted and so in such a case. the plaint cannot be held liable to be rejected.56

Remedy for rejection of plaint or memo of appeal for non-payment of Court-fee

If the plaintiff does not comply with the order of the Court directing to pay deficit Court-fee by
the date specified, the next step which the Court would take is stated in Order VII, Rule 11(c) of
the C.P.C. which provides that in case when the relief claimed is found undervalued and the
plaintiff on being required to pay the deficit Court-fee and to correct the valuation within a time
to be fixed by the Court fails to do so the plaint is liable to be rejected. Under Section 2(2), C.P.C.,
an order rejecting a plaint is a decree and therefore. an appeal obviously lies against such an order
as an appeal from a decree. Where a plaint is rejected for failure to pay the deficit Court-tee the
plaintiff can either bring a fresh suit or appeal against the order of rejection of the plaint. 57
The Court has the power to grant time for payment of Court fee and the Court at any time during
the pendency of the suit can decide the question whether the Court fee paid is correct or not and
can grant time to pay the Court fee determined by it as payable therefore, merely on the ground
that the plaintiff had purchased the Court fees after verification of the plaint, rejection of plaint
did not arise.58

Rejection of plaint when suit barred prima facie

Order VII, Rule 11(d) is attracted only when on admitted facts as appearing from the plaint itself,
the suit 'sprit. facie not maintainable. When prima facie Civil Court has no jurisdiction, proper
order is rejection of plaint.59 To attract Rule 11(d) no investigation into fact is necessary. If the
"law" by which exclusion of Civil Court's jurisdiction is contemplated, on its face, manifests the
requirement of investigation into any fact then there would be no scope for passing order of
rejection of plaint.60

55 Anil Sabharwal mut another v. Arun Sabhanval and others. AIR 2008 P&II 158.
56 Muria Rai v. Omprakash Gupta. 1980 Mah IJ 86.
57 Mannu Das v Kisto Dos. AIR 1983 Pat 272
58 Muria Rai v. Omprakash Gupta. 1980 Mah IJ 86
59 Anil Sabharwal mut another v. Arun Sabhanval and others. AIR 2008
60 Bonita! v. Son. Parlarsh, AIR 1952 Punj 38
 P a g e | - 17 -

Rejection of plaint for improper joinder of party

Rejection of plaint on the ground that a party has been maliciously impleaded and that too,
before written statement being filed is not warranted by law.61
By no stretch of imagination, can a suit be bad for misjoinder of parties or misjoinder of causes
of action be held to be barred by any law within the meaning of Order VII, Rule 11(d).

61 Unilever PLC and another v. Vesco Laboratories and another, AIR 24110 Guj
 P a g e | - 18 -

Chapter 4
Case laws
Case: Amar Chand v. Union of India62
Issue: 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.
Facts: The plaintiff in this case was an advocate practicing at the Ajmer bar. On the night between
December 31, 1957 and January 1, 1958, the plaintiff was traveling by passenger train from
Ambala Cantt. to Delhi. While the train was at Mohri Railway Station, the Janatha Express train
coming from Delhi collided with it and as a result the plaintiff sustained serious injuries on his
head and in the spine. The plaintiff filed the 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.
In this regard some more facts need to be looked at. There is no dispute that the Article applicable
to the suit is Article 22 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, hereinafter called the ‘Act’ which
provided a period of one year for a suit for compensation for injury to the person from the date
when the injury was committed. The injury here was committed on January 1, 1958. But the
plaintiff had to issue a notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code before filing the suit.
The plaintiff issued the notice and it was served on the General Manager of the Railway in
question on December 29, 1958. The Suit was filed in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge
of Karnal, hereinafter called the ‘Karnal Court’, on March 2, 1959, as March 1, 1959, was a day
on which the Court was not open. For ministerial purposes, the suit was subsequently transferred
to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Panipat, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Panipat Court’,
which by its order, dated October 28, 1959, returned the plaint for presentation to the proper court.
That was on the basis of its finding that Mohri Railway Station, 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, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’,
on October 29, 1959, together with an application under Section 14 of the Act.
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

62 AIR 1973 SC 313

 P a g e | - 19 -

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.
Held: 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.

Case: R.S.D.V. Finance Company Private Limited v. Shree Vallabh Glass Works Limited63

Facts: The appellant R.S.D.V. Finance Company Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
plaintiff’) filed a summary suit against the respondent Shree Vallabh Glass Works Limited
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the defendant’) in the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High
Court. The case of the plaintiff was that it had deposited a sum of Rupees 10,00,000/- with interest
to be charged @ 19% per annum, with the defendant. The said deposit was to be for a period of
90 days. The aforesaid amount of Rupees 10,00,000/- was given to the defendant-company
through Cheque No. 933251 dated 5th July, 1983 in the bank account of the defendant at Bombay.
The defendant issued a deposit receipt for the aforesaid amount dated- 11-7-1983. The aforesaid
deposit receipt contained an endorsement to the effect ‘Subject to Anand jurisdiction’. The date
of maturity of the aforesaid amount was to expire on 3-10-1983. According to the plaintiff the
defendant failed to pay the amount of Rupees 10,00,000/- and requested the plaintiff to continue
the said deposit till the end of November, 1983 and for that purpose, handed over to the plaintiff
post dated cheques of Rs. 2,00,000/- each drawn on a Bombay bank. The defendant had also issued
a cheque dated 30th November, 1983 for a sum of Rs. 22,288.32 by way of interest on the said
amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-. This cheque was also drawn in favour of the plaintiff payable in
Bombay. The plaintiff submitted the aforesaid 5 cheques for payment but the same were
dishonoured for the reason “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.
Rule: Where at any stage of the suit the court finds that it has no jurisdiction either territorial,
pecuniary or with regard to subject matter, it should return the plaint to be presented in the proper
court in which the suit ought to have been filed.
Held: A single judge of the High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, causing the defendant to
appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court which by its order dated 24th October, 1991
held that in the circumstances of the case, this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the

63 1997) 9 SCC 688.

 P a g e | - 20 -

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.
Subsequently the case was brought before the Supreme Court on appeal by the plaintiff. The
Supreme 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 post-dated
cheques. Even if there was any doubt in the mind of Division Bench the counsel for the plaintiff
had made a request for allowing him to amend the plaint which was refused by the Division Bench.
The Division Bench was totally wrong in passing or 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 a 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 and not to be rejected.

Case: Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra64

Issue: At what stage the court can use its power under Order VII Rule 11
Facts: The appellant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 in the suits praying the court to dismiss the suits on the ground stated therein. It was stated
that the plaint is liable to be rejected under Clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII C.P.C. The
respondents also filed the application under Order VIII Rule 10 C.P.C. to pronounce judgment in
the suits as the appellant did not file his written statement. There was also an application by the
appellant under Section 151 C.P.C. praying the court to decide first the application under Order
VII Rule 11 C.P.C. By order dated 8th December, 2001, the Trial Judge dismissed the application
under Order VIII Rule 10 as well as the application filed under Section 151 C.P.C. Insofar as the
application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. was concerned, the Judge directed the appellant to
file his written statement. The appellant filed revision petitions before the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh [Indore Bench]. On May 7, 2002, the High Court, while confirming the order of the Trial
Judge reiterated the direction given by the Trial Judge 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.

64 AIR 1993 SC 2094

 P a g e | - 21 -

Rule: Order VII Rule 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 absence of any statutory restriction, it is open to
the court to use this power at any stage.
Held: The Apex Court held that the trial court can exercise the power under Order VII Rule 11
C.P.C. 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 Rule 11 of Order VII C.P.C., 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 under Order
VII Rule 11 C.P.C. cannot but be procedural irregularity touching the exercise of jurisdiction by
the trial court. The order, therefore, suffers from non-exercising of the jurisdiction vested in the
court as well as procedural irregularity.

Case: Samar Singh v. Kedar Nath65

Issue: Whether the court could use its powers under Order VII Rule 11 even after issues had
been framed? Whether Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC would be applicable to election petitions.
Facts: During the General Elections held in the year 1984, the appellant filed his nomination
paper for contesting election to the Lok Sabha from 79-Hapur Parliamentary Constituency. The
appellant’s 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 respondent’s election on a number of grounds.
The respondent appeared before the High Court, filed written statement and contested the election
petition. On December 10, 1985 issues were framed, thereafter the respondent made an application
for rejecting the election petition under Order 7 Rule 11 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 Order
7 Rule 11 of CPC after the settlement of issues.
Held: 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

65 AIR 1919 Cal. 447.

 P a g e | - 22 -

as possible. The provisions of the CPC do not apply in their entirety to the trial of the election
petition but the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 apply to an election petition and the High Court has
jurisdiction to 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 of preliminary
objection and to reject an election petition or a plaint if it does not disclose any cause of action. If
a plaint or an election petition does not disclose any cause of action, it does not stand to reason as
to why the defendant or the respondent should incur costs and waste public time in producing
evidence when the proceedings can be disposed of on the preliminary objection. Thus the powers
of the court under Order 7 Rule 11 may be used even after the issues have been framed.

Case: Meenakshisundaram Chettiar v. Venkatachalam Chettiar66

Facts: The appellant filed the suit praying for a decree against the respondent/defendant to render
true and correct account of all transactions of the respondent as petitioner’s agent from January
22, 1965 and also of all the amounts received by him as the agent of the petitioner 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 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.
Held: The Court held that Order VII Rule 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

66 AIR 1979 SC 989

 P a g e | - 23 -

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.
 P a g e | - 24 -

CONCLUSION
Order VII provides rules regarding ‘Plaint’. Rule 1 to 8 of Order VII relate to particulars in a
plaint. Rule 9 lays down procedure on plaint being admitted. Whereas Rules 10 to 10-B provide
for return of plaint, and appearance of parties, Rules 11 to 13 deal with rejection of plaint.

A ‘plaint’ is the pleading of the plaintiff. It contains facts showing the cause of action, particulars
to identify the parties to the suit, and specifies other details like jurisdiction, value of the suit,
court fees, relief claimed, etc. These particulars are required to be stated by Rule 1 of Order VII.

Rule 2 and 3 provide for plaint in case of money suits, where the subject matter of the suit is
immovable property. For money suits, if the value to be claimed is known to the plaintiff, he
should state the precise amount claimed, but if it is to be determined by the court then the
plaintiff must state the approximate amount he has sued for.
For suits regarding immovable property, the plaint shall contain description of the property for
the purpose of identification, and if possible, it shall include the boundaries or numbers from
records of settlement or survey, which can identify the property.

For suing in a representative character, Rule 4 provides that the plaintiff must show that he has an
actual existing interest in the subject-matter, and that he has taken the steps necessary to enable
him to institute a suit concerning it.

Rule 5 makes it clear that the defendant’s interest in the subject matter along with the fact that he
is liable to be called upon to answer the plaintiff’s demand are to be shown in the plaint.

If the suit is barred by limitation, Rule 6 requires that the plaint must show the ground of
exemption in the plaint. These grounds are present in the Limitation Act, 1963, from sections 12-
19. The amendment to the rule empowers the plaintiff to rely on a new ground for exemption if it
is not inconsistent with the grounds mentioned in the plaint.

The plaint must specifically state the relief claimed by the plaintiff either simply or in the
alternative. Where the relief is founded on separate and distinct grounds, they should be so stated.
Where the plaintiff is entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action, it is
open to him to claim all or any of such reliefs.
 P a g e | - 25 -

If it is found at any stage of the suit, that the court 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. The plaintiff thereafter, must file the plaint afresh
in the proper court. This is required by Rule 10-10B of Order VII.

Rule 11 provides for the rejection of plaint in certain cases, such as when the plaint does not
disclose a cause of action, or where the relief claimed is undervalued, or where it is insufficiently
stamped, etc. The plaint is rejected by a judge who passes an order after recording reasons for
such rejection. If the plaint is rejected on any ground, this does not make the plaintiff precluded
from presenting a fresh plaint in respect of the same cause of action.
 P a g e | - 26 -

Bibliography
 Gupta, Vinay Kumar. ‘Mulla: Code of Civil Procedure’, 14th Ed.
(New Delhi; Lexis Nexis; 2005)
 Basu, N.D.. ‘Code of Civil Procedure Vol. 3’, 10th Ed.
(New Delhi; Ashoka Law House; 2007)
 Nandi, A.K. and Nandi, S., ‘Code of Civil Procedure, 1908’, 2nd Ed.
(Kolkata, Kamal Law House, 2006)
 Jain, M.P., ‘Code of Civil Procedure’, 2nd Ed.
(New Delhi, Wadhwa, 2007)
 Gupta, S.P. Sen, ‘Handbook of the Code of Civil Procedure: 1908’
(Kolkata, Kamal Law House, 2007)
 Anubhule, Rajendra D., ‘Code of Civil Procedure: 1908’
(Pune; Hind Law Publisher; 2008)
 Manohar, V.R & Chitaley, W.W., ‘Code of Civil Procedure: Vol.3’ 11th Ed.
(Nagpur; All India Reporter; 2012)