The plaint in the civil case is the initiator of the suit. Civil Procedure Code 1908 provides for rejection of such plaint under order 7 rule 11 if the following grounds are fulfilled:
(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.”
Object/Principle
When a party embarks on his journey of civil litigation then it is expected to frame its plaint in such a manner that no formality is left out so as to make the court to reject its plaint. Reason being that court would not waste its time in dealing with incomplete and half heartedly framed plaints. (Azahar Hussain v Rajiv Gandhi)
Grounds of Rejection of Plaint
Non disclosure of cause of action
Cause of action means a party has legal right against other person and the breach of such right by that person. It must be revealed in the plaint. Unless the court is aware of the cause of action, it can’t award the relief sought by the party. Now question arises how to check whether the plaint reveals the cause of action or not?
Well, court is not harsh in straight away rejecting the plaint the moment it faces any difficulty in tracing the cause of action rather it would take the following steps to ascertain the same –
A. It may go through the whole contents of the plaint
B. It may examine the parties orally to know the real conflict between them (Order 10 rule 1 )
C. It may peruse the documents filed along with plaint
D. It may even allow the party to withdraw the plaint under order 23 rule (1)(3) to cure the defect (this rule applies when suit is bound to fail because of some “formal defect” and non disclosure of cause of action is a formal defect)
Now even, after adopting all these measures, the cause of action is not revealed then court would reject the plaint.
NOTE: It must be kept in mind that court has power to reject the plaint the moment it finds any of the grounds mentioned under rule 11.These measure are adopted so that party does not bear double litigation cost and time and energy of the court and party can be saved. Moreover the rejection of plaint is very hard order as it does away with very foundation of the plaint and there is no scope left to the party to restore the same. It has only option to file a fresh plaint with fresh court fee. Therefore instead of straightaway rejecting the plaint, court adopts so many ways.
“A plaint which doesn’t discloses cause of action has no prospect of succeeding ,it is therefore in the common interest of the parties and judicial interest that such plaint is rejected. (Raj Narain Sharin through LRs v Lakshmi Devi)
Under valuation of Plaint
When plaint is not valued according to the subject matter of the suit then it is liable to be rejected. But proviso to rule 11 provides that before rejecting the plaint court may grant some more time to plaintiff to correct the defect if the plaintiff was acting diligently and bonafidely.
Insufficiently stamped plaint
Whenever a plaint is filed it has to be properly stamped as per requirement of the case. If it is not stamped it would be rejected. But again proviso to rule 11 provides a leeway to plaintiff to cure the defect if the court allows.
Suit barred by law
A suit which is barred by law is liable to be rejected. Barred by law means either the plaintiff did not complied with the formal requirements of instituting the plaint like serving the notice under section 80 of CPC,1908 or the limitation period to institute such suit had expired and such expiry of period is traceable from the plaint itself.
When plaint is not filed in duplicate –
If plaint is not filed in duplicate, court has to reject the plaint.
Non Compliance with rule 9
Rule 9 provides that the plaintiff shall endorse on the plaint, or annex thereto, a list of the documents (if any) which he has produced along with it; and, if the plaint is admitted, shall present, within such time as may be fixed by the Court or extended by it from time to time, as many copies on plain paper of the plaint as there are defendants,
unless the Court by reason of the length of the plaint or the number of the defendants, or for any other sufficient reason, permits him to present a like number of concise statements of the nature of the claim made, or of the relief claimed in the suit, in which case he shall present such statements. It further provides that the plaintiff shall, within the time fixed by the Court or extended by it under sub-rule (1), pay the requisite fee for the service of summons on the defendants.
In case this is not complied with, the plaint shalbe rejected.
Rejection of plaint; a demurrer claim?
A demurrer claim is a claim for the proof of which one cannot give evidences. Means the ground of rejection has to be present in the document itself. Time and question arises whether a defendant can be examined or the written statement can be taken into consideration to reject the plaint. In the Kamala and others v Eshwara the apex court held that to reject a plaint only the averments in the plaint has to be checked. If from the pleadings of plaint any of the grounds mentioned under rule 11 are visible, plaint has to be rejected. Neither the defendant nor his written statement can be take into consideration to reject the plaint. Rejection of pliant is a demurrer claim and to prove it no evidence can be given.
Recently in Shri Hanumandas Totala v Hemant Vithal kamath the issue was whether res judicata can be the ground of rejection of plaint?
It was held by the Supreme court that when a suit is filed the court is not expected to know that a suit involving the same rights and titles between same parties had already been decided in a previous suit and now it is being filed again. It is the defendant who will raise the objection of res judicata at any stage of the suit. And res judicata can only be proved if he produces the copy of plaint and judgement of previously decided suit. Now what he is doing is producing evidences to get the plaint rejected but the ground of rejection has to be present in the plaint itself which is not in the present case. The moment defendant gives evidence to reject the plaint, it no longer remains demurrer claim. In such a situation it will be said that suit is dismissed, not rejection of plaint.
Therefore res judicata cannot be ground of rejection of plaint.
Similarly to prove that a suit is barred by order 2 rule 2 , defendant has to give evidences of previously decided plaint and judgement and hence this also can not be ground of rejection of plaint but the dismissal of suit.
Is order 7 rule 11 exhaustive?
In the case of K Akbar ali v Umar khan, it was held by the supreme court that order 7 rule 11 is not exhaustive to reject a plaint rather it can also be rejected under section 151 of CPC if the court finds that plaintiff was trying to mislead the court on the Material facts( suppressia varie)of the case.
Can court allow to amend the Plaint under order 6 rule 17 to cure the defects ?
Order 6 rule 17 provides that court may at any stage of the proceedings allow the party to amend its pleadings so as to bring the real conflict between the parties.
In the case of Sayyad ayaz v Prakash G Goyal, the Supreme court held that court cannot allow the amendment in the plaint when the plaint otherwise is liable to be rejected. Court based its conclusion on the fact that the mandate of Rule 11 is “compulsory” in nature, it is not in the nature of a choice that is available to the court. In such a case, court doesn’t have the option to not reject the plaint. The only option with the court is to reject it, in case the same is barred by law, or doesn’t disclose a cause of action.
Conclusion
Rejection of plaint is an effective remedy which saves innocent defendants from prolonged legal struggle; while also saving the precious judicial time. Its status as a deemed decree, and the clear legislative statement as to “no bar on fresh plaint” to be filed, on the ground that earlier plaint was rejected, also ensures enough cushions for this provision to not work prejudicially against the innocent plaintiffs.
