Under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, a plaint cannot be partially rejected :- Supreme Court
On October 31, 2023, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kum. Geetha Vs. Nanjundaswamy clarified that a plaint cannot be partially rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court emphasized that when a plaint fails to disclose a cause of action, it is subject to rejection under Order VII Rule 11. In essence, the key test is to read the plaint as a whole, and if it reveals a cause of action, the application under Order VII Rule 11 must fail; conversely, if it doesn't disclose a cause of action, the plaint should be rejected.
The case in question involved a suit for partition and separate possession filed by the plaintiffs, with the defendants seeking the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11. The plaintiffs and defendants No. 1 to 3 were part of a joint family that owned properties under Schedule A and B of the plaint.
While the Trial Court dismissed the application for rejecting the plaint on the grounds that it did not disclose a cause of action, the High Court, on the other hand, partially allowed the application under Order VII Rule 11 and rejected the plaint concerning the Schedule-A property in the plaint. The High Court based its decision on the fact that the property in Schedule A had been sold in 1919 through a registered Sale Deed, and the plaintiffs did not contest this sale or provide evidence to challenge it.
The Supreme Court found that the Karnataka High Court had misapplied the established principles of Order VII Rule 11 and that partially rejecting the plaint was contrary to the law. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court had inappropriately delved into the merits of the case and prematurely determined the truth, legality, and validity of the sale deed. This approach was deemed incorrect and inconsistent with the well-established principles for considering applications under Order VII Rule 11.
Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11, and reinstated the suit, including the properties listed in Schedule A of the plaint. The Court emphasized that the High Court's decision to partially reject the plaint was impermissible when considering applications under Order VII Rule 11 and, therefore, reversed the judgment and order of the High Court on this basis.